The Legend of Pontian
Pontian : The south-western district of Johor, derived its name from a not-so-glamorous source.
If you think it was from the blood-sucking Pontianak, or vampire, you would be wrong.
Rather, the name has to do with the pirates in the Straits of Malacca, who hijacked vessels near Kukup at the south-westernmost tip of the peninsula.
One of their hiding grounds was called Perhentian Besar (Big Stopover) while another was Perhentian Kecil (Small Stopover), both located at the estuary of two different rivers.
The pirates shortened the names to Pontian Besar and Pontian Kecil, and the rivers to Sungai Pontian Besar and Sungai Pontian Kecil.
Ironically, Pontian Besar is merely a small fishing village today while Pontian Kecil has evolved into the district’s capital and commercial centre.
Some, however, say Pontian does not have its roots in either Pontian Besar or Pontian Kecil but in Kukup. Yet others say the name came from Pulau Pisang.
According to historical records, an Arab merchant from Singapore, Syed Muhamed Alsogoff, appealed to the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Abu Bakar, to let him develop a piece of agricultural land in Johor in 1878. Not only was his request granted, he was also allowed to choose his site.
The merchant left Teluk Belangah in Singapore in a boat and toured along the southwestern coast of Johor to find this ideal land. He earmarket Kukup, a fishing village populated by Malays from Malacca.
During the area, Kukup was the capital of Kukup District.
The Sultan of Johor granted the land at Sungai Pontian Besar, Sungai Pontian Kecil, Sungai Permas and Sungai Jeram Batu to Syed Muhamad, who later brought in the Javanese to plant rubber, sago, coconut, coffee, pineapple and spices.
He named his farms Constantinople Estate, and printed his own currency in demominations of two, one, 25 and 50 cents for use in his farm. All produce were sent to Singapore by sea through Kukup.
Syed Muhamad also leased out part of the land to his workers and other merchants. His ambitious plan for the land prompted more and more Javanese to migrate to Kukup, and the port grew in size.
When Syed Muhamad died in 1906, his son Syed Omar Alsagoff took control of the land until the British came in 1914.
For administrative purposes, the state government eventually bought back the land at RM1 million in 1926.
To further develop Kukup, the state government built a road linking Kukup and Pontian Kecil. In 1929, another road was built to link Pontian Kecil and Johor Baru.
The Kukup folk were happy with the two projects, but what they did not realize was that the roads would eventually lead them to their economis demise.
The Pontian Kecil-Johor Baru road helped Pontian Kecil to boom due to its proximity to Johor Baru and Batu Pahat. With more businesses and government offices set up in Pontian Kecil, Kukup’s days of glory were numbered.
Eventually, Pontian Kecil replaced Kukup as the district capital while the district was later renamed Pontian.
Another version says Pontian was first established in Pulau Pisang, a small island with a lighthouse off Pontian Kecil.
Hundreds of years ago, the island and Pontian Kecil were so close to each another that if a cock were to crow in Pulau Pisang, it could be heard in Pontian Kecil. Because of earth movement,the two places are now 12 nautical miles apart.
Based on records, it was Penghulu Merdang who established Pulau Pisang, with villagers planting padi and fruits, especially mangoes. After his death, his son Basok migrated with some villagers to Pontian Besar to develop the place.
Another story has it that it was Hassan Koris who turned Pontian Besar into an agricultural land and sold its produce to Singapore.
For the older generation, Pulau Pisang is a legendary island formed from a shipwreck. Legend has it that the only son of a couple from Tanjung Piai ventured into the world and became a big merchant with many vessels years later.
When his vessel stopped at the existing Pulau Pisang one day, his parents were so happy that they prepared much delicious food and travelled in a boat to see their long lost son. However their son refused to acknowledge them and chased them away.
While travelling back to Tanjung Piai, the mother cursed her son. Suddenly, the sky changed colour and a storm came, sinking the vessel, which became Pulau Pisang.
It was named Pulau Pisang as many banana trees were found there.
But whichever version is right, Pontian is inarguably an important agricultural district in Johor today, offering many resources for agro and eco-tourism.
Kukup has the world’s biggest mangrove forest, and Tanjung Piai is a landmark due to its location on the southern-most tip of continental Asia.
Pulau Pisang remains as remote as it was, although the lighthouse there remains a contentious issue as it is run by Singaporeans although the island belongs to Malaysia.
Source: Sim Bak Heng
New Straits Times, February 24, 2009
Visit Sponsor Link: How to Drive Traffic to Blog
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Lt. Adnan Saidi
Adnan's Heroic Exploits at Bukit Chandu Live On
For 48 hours, the Japanese were held back in what has now come to be called the Battle of Bukit Chandu.
Members of the Japanese 18th Army were frustrated that they could not get past the defenders of Pasir Panjang ridge.
Led by the Malay Regiment’s Lt Adnan Saidi, the 42 strong contingent of defenders fought like wounded tigers.
The 27-year old Adnan had joined the regiment when he was 18 and had enjoyed a stellar military career, working his way up from a mere private. He had been posted to Singapore in 1941, and when the rumblings of war had grown more disquieting, had sent his pregnant wife and two children back to Selangor.
Source: New Straits Times, Wednesday, February 11, 2009
It was to be the last they would see of each other. When the first attack on Bukit Chandu came, the Japanese soldiers were said to have been dressed as Punjabi soldiers.
The sharp-eyed Adnan, however, was not fooled and was said to have personally killed 22 enemy soldiers that day.
On Feb 14, 1942 – the day before the fall of Singapore – the regiment’s positions were finally taken by the Japanese. In the final push, the enemy used artillery and mortar fire.
Those who were not killed outright were executed. Adnan was among them.
He was reported to have been put into a gunny sack and hung upside down from a tree for Japanese soldiers to use as bayonet practice. His body was never found.
The final hand-to-hand combat between the opposing forces – one a full army and the other a mere company of soldiers – is etched in a mural at a nearby bungalow which has an exhibit called “Glimpses of Bukit Chandu”.
Among the things visitors can see is a sound and light show depicting the final battle. Also included is a roll of honour of the fallen heroes.
Adnan is not much remembered now, unless you happen to be a member of the armed forces, or a present or former student of SM Lt Adnan in Kajang, where he was born. There is also a road in Seremban named after him.
For 48 hours, the Japanese were held back in what has now come to be called the Battle of Bukit Chandu.
Members of the Japanese 18th Army were frustrated that they could not get past the defenders of Pasir Panjang ridge.
Led by the Malay Regiment’s Lt Adnan Saidi, the 42 strong contingent of defenders fought like wounded tigers.
The 27-year old Adnan had joined the regiment when he was 18 and had enjoyed a stellar military career, working his way up from a mere private. He had been posted to Singapore in 1941, and when the rumblings of war had grown more disquieting, had sent his pregnant wife and two children back to Selangor.
Source: New Straits Times, Wednesday, February 11, 2009
It was to be the last they would see of each other. When the first attack on Bukit Chandu came, the Japanese soldiers were said to have been dressed as Punjabi soldiers.
The sharp-eyed Adnan, however, was not fooled and was said to have personally killed 22 enemy soldiers that day.
On Feb 14, 1942 – the day before the fall of Singapore – the regiment’s positions were finally taken by the Japanese. In the final push, the enemy used artillery and mortar fire.
Those who were not killed outright were executed. Adnan was among them.
He was reported to have been put into a gunny sack and hung upside down from a tree for Japanese soldiers to use as bayonet practice. His body was never found.
The final hand-to-hand combat between the opposing forces – one a full army and the other a mere company of soldiers – is etched in a mural at a nearby bungalow which has an exhibit called “Glimpses of Bukit Chandu”.
Among the things visitors can see is a sound and light show depicting the final battle. Also included is a roll of honour of the fallen heroes.
Adnan is not much remembered now, unless you happen to be a member of the armed forces, or a present or former student of SM Lt Adnan in Kajang, where he was born. There is also a road in Seremban named after him.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
History Behind Negri's Selection of Ruler
The ruler of Negri Sembilan is selected by a council of ruling chiefs in the state, or the datuk datuk undang. The person selected will assume the position of Yang di-Pertuan Besar, or Yam Tuan, a post which began in 1773.
The state, which had been receiving immigrants from Sumatra for hundreds of years, is ruled by a unique form of government.
Before it became known as Negri Sembilan, the area was ruled by the Sultan of Malacca. After Malacca was defeated by the Portuguese, it was ruled by the Johor sultanate.
By 1760, however, Johor, which was having trouble from the Dutch, decided to allow the state to find a raja or sultan from Minangkabau in Sumatra.
Between 1760 and 1770, a council of leaders known as the datuk-datuk penghulu luak (the predecessor of the datuk datuk undang today) left for Pagar Ruyong in Minangkabau in search of a leader.
The Raja of Pagar Ruyong-who was believed to be a descendant of Alexander The Great, gave them a leader in the form of his son, Raja Mahmud. Raja Mahmud later became known as Raja Melewar when he came to Negri Sembilan.
When Raja Melewar died in 1795, instead of selecting his son as their new leader, the same council of leaders once again set out on a journey to their ancestral land.
This time, the Raja of Pagar Ruyong gave another one of his sons--Raja Hitam as their new Yam Tuan.
Raja Hitam married Raja Melewar’s daughter, Tengku Aishah, but they had no children. He died in 1808.
Once again, the leaders of Negri Sembilan went to Minangkabau in search of someone to replace their leader.
The Raja of Pagar Ruyong at that time sent his son, Raja Lenggang. He wedded Raja Hitam’s second daughter, Tengku Ngah, from another marriage. They had two sons – Tengku Radin and Tengku Imam.
Before he died in 1824, Raja Lenggang said it was his wish that Tengku Radin be made the Yam Tuan.
This time, the datuk datuk undang did not embark on a trip to meet the Raja of Pagar Ruyong.
Thus, for the first time in its history, Negri Sembilan had a hereditary leader.
Yam Tuan Radin ruled for 30 years before he died. Then, his brother, Yang di-Pertuan Imam, ruled for eight years.
When he died, Negri Sembilan was plunged into uncertainty when Yam Tuan Radin’s son, Tengku Antah, and Yang di-Pertuan Imam’s son, Tengku Ahmad Tunggal, scrambled for the throne.
The council did not want to accept Tengku Ahmad Tunggal, so Tengku Antah became ruler until 1888. His son, Tuanku Muhammad, later took over until his death in 1933.
Tuanku Muhammad’s son, Tuanku Abdul Rahman, took over in 1960. The latter’s son, Tuanku Munawir, ascended the throne in 1960 and ruled until 1967.
When Tuanku Munawir died, his brother, Tuanku Ja’afar Tuanku Abdul Rahman, became the ruler of Negri Sembilan. – Information from Warisan Diraja Negri Sembilan Darul Khusus.
The Royal Lineage
1. Raja Melewar 1773-1795 (invited)
2. Yam Tuan Hitam 1795-1808 (invited)
3. Yam Tuan Lenggang 1808-1824 (invited)
4. Raja Radin 1824-1861 (son)
5. Yang di-Pertuan Imam 1861-1869 (brother)
6. Yam Tuan Antah 1872-1888 (Raja Radin’son)
7. Tuanku Muhammad 1888-1933 (son)
8. Tuanku Abdul Rahman 1933-1960 (son)
9. Tuanku Munawir 1960-1967 (son)
10. Tuanku Ja’afar 1967-December 2008 (brother)
11. Tunku Mukhriz Tuanku Munawir (December 2008- (nephew)
Source: New Straits Times, Monday, December 29, 2008
The state, which had been receiving immigrants from Sumatra for hundreds of years, is ruled by a unique form of government.
Before it became known as Negri Sembilan, the area was ruled by the Sultan of Malacca. After Malacca was defeated by the Portuguese, it was ruled by the Johor sultanate.
By 1760, however, Johor, which was having trouble from the Dutch, decided to allow the state to find a raja or sultan from Minangkabau in Sumatra.
Between 1760 and 1770, a council of leaders known as the datuk-datuk penghulu luak (the predecessor of the datuk datuk undang today) left for Pagar Ruyong in Minangkabau in search of a leader.
The Raja of Pagar Ruyong-who was believed to be a descendant of Alexander The Great, gave them a leader in the form of his son, Raja Mahmud. Raja Mahmud later became known as Raja Melewar when he came to Negri Sembilan.
When Raja Melewar died in 1795, instead of selecting his son as their new leader, the same council of leaders once again set out on a journey to their ancestral land.
This time, the Raja of Pagar Ruyong gave another one of his sons--Raja Hitam as their new Yam Tuan.
Raja Hitam married Raja Melewar’s daughter, Tengku Aishah, but they had no children. He died in 1808.
Once again, the leaders of Negri Sembilan went to Minangkabau in search of someone to replace their leader.
The Raja of Pagar Ruyong at that time sent his son, Raja Lenggang. He wedded Raja Hitam’s second daughter, Tengku Ngah, from another marriage. They had two sons – Tengku Radin and Tengku Imam.
Before he died in 1824, Raja Lenggang said it was his wish that Tengku Radin be made the Yam Tuan.
This time, the datuk datuk undang did not embark on a trip to meet the Raja of Pagar Ruyong.
Thus, for the first time in its history, Negri Sembilan had a hereditary leader.
Yam Tuan Radin ruled for 30 years before he died. Then, his brother, Yang di-Pertuan Imam, ruled for eight years.
When he died, Negri Sembilan was plunged into uncertainty when Yam Tuan Radin’s son, Tengku Antah, and Yang di-Pertuan Imam’s son, Tengku Ahmad Tunggal, scrambled for the throne.
The council did not want to accept Tengku Ahmad Tunggal, so Tengku Antah became ruler until 1888. His son, Tuanku Muhammad, later took over until his death in 1933.
Tuanku Muhammad’s son, Tuanku Abdul Rahman, took over in 1960. The latter’s son, Tuanku Munawir, ascended the throne in 1960 and ruled until 1967.
When Tuanku Munawir died, his brother, Tuanku Ja’afar Tuanku Abdul Rahman, became the ruler of Negri Sembilan. – Information from Warisan Diraja Negri Sembilan Darul Khusus.
The Royal Lineage
1. Raja Melewar 1773-1795 (invited)
2. Yam Tuan Hitam 1795-1808 (invited)
3. Yam Tuan Lenggang 1808-1824 (invited)
4. Raja Radin 1824-1861 (son)
5. Yang di-Pertuan Imam 1861-1869 (brother)
6. Yam Tuan Antah 1872-1888 (Raja Radin’son)
7. Tuanku Muhammad 1888-1933 (son)
8. Tuanku Abdul Rahman 1933-1960 (son)
9. Tuanku Munawir 1960-1967 (son)
10. Tuanku Ja’afar 1967-December 2008 (brother)
11. Tunku Mukhriz Tuanku Munawir (December 2008- (nephew)
Source: New Straits Times, Monday, December 29, 2008
Monday, 24 November 2008
Root of the Name Sabah
Getting to Root of the Name Sabah
By: Jaswinder Kaur
From "North Borneo" to "Sabah", just how did the state get its name?
The quest to discover the origins of Sabah's name took me deep into the Internet and volumes of journal and articles.
My first stop was the search engine Google which took me to websites on names for babies. Sabah, the websites explained, is a girl's name and means morning in Arabic. In Africa, it refers to the sunrise.
The only reference in the Internet to how Sabah got its name is detailed in a couple of blogs, with information pieced together from a variety of sources.
One blog entry claimed the name was widely used in the 15th century when Sabah was part of Brunei and that it referred to pisang saba, a type of banana which grew well along the coast.
Interestingly, Seludang cropped up as an old name for Sabah. According to a blog, it was used in reference to this region in a Javanese poem dating back to 1365.
Obviously, I couldn't get all the information I needed on the Web, so I went to the Sabah state library.
In volume seven of the 1981-1982 Sabah Society Journal, I found a nine-page article by Allen R. Maxwell titled The Origin of the name Sabah.
Maxwell did not mention the banana theory but he dismissed the numerous theories and meanings ascribed to the name Sabah in published literature as "fanciful suggestions" because there was a lack of supporting evidence.
He said a study on the subject suggested that Sabah was derived from the Malay, sabak which is the place for or act of boiling to extract palm sugar. Again, he ruled out this theory due to lack of evidence.
Maxwell also says that in Bruneian Malay, saba means downstream but other studies say it means upstream. Sabah is located to the northwest, or upstream of Brunei.
"The other sense of meaning of the word saba, and the one which specifically gives rise to the name of the state of Sabah, is much less general, and refers specifically to the northern portion of the island of Borneo.
"The published literature abounds in examples of this usage, but different authors seem to place an almost endless variety of only slightly different interpretations on this sense of meaning," Maxwell adds.
"Various authors indicate that Sabah is a local name, a Malay name, an old Malay name,a native name, an old native name, or an indigenous and Brunei people's name; a name referring to portions of the northwest coast of Borneo, northern Borneo, north of Brunei, or the territory of the British North Borneo Company."
A few days later, I found myself flicking through old books at a small corner of the Sabah Museum library.
I came across Volume Four of the Sabah Society Journal 1969-70 which had an article titled The Pre-history of Sabah by Tom and Barbara Harrisson.
According to the authors, most names in Borneo had their roots buried in prehistory, and were "beyond any hope of further disentanglement".
"Most Sabahans take their state's title for granted. They are wise to do so...Sabah is better considered as a word of obscure local origin," the Harrissons wrote.
Realising that I was not likely to get any more answers, my attention turned to why, after being called North Borneo for 82 years from the time of the British North Borneo Chartered Company in 1881 until independence in 1963, the state's name was changed to Sabah.
In the state's annual report for 1963,published the following year, it was stated that the legislative council had voted unanimously that the British colony should become independent on August 31 under the name of Sabah, but it did not give any reasons. From that date, North Borneo became known officially as Sabah.
Former Sabah state secretary Tan Sri Richard Lind, who was in the civil service during British rule, told me that the matter of changing North Borneo's name to Sabah was raised well before independence by the late Tun Mustapha Harun, who later went on to serve as head of state and chief minister.
"There was a lot of objections from Governor Roland Turnbull who said the whole world already knew North Borneo.
"It took over two years and there was a debate over it," Lind said.
He said the word Sabah was not commonly used during British rule but that the Native Courts called the region negeri Sabah.
"I served as a district officer once and I know that the native courts used the word Sabah. They never called it North Borneo," he said.
I also found a book published five years before the state's independence, called Sabah Men At Work, in the North Borneo Social Studies series which indicated that the name Sabah was known to the public.
A much earlier use of the name was in Joseph Hatton's book The New Ceylon, being a sketch of British North Borneo, or Sabah in 1881.
As Maxwell had pointed out, the study of the origin of place names can be fascinating, informative and rewarding.
Source: New Straits Times, Tuesday, September 16, 2008
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
How to Become Professional Blogger
By: Jaswinder Kaur
From "North Borneo" to "Sabah", just how did the state get its name?
The quest to discover the origins of Sabah's name took me deep into the Internet and volumes of journal and articles.
My first stop was the search engine Google which took me to websites on names for babies. Sabah, the websites explained, is a girl's name and means morning in Arabic. In Africa, it refers to the sunrise.
The only reference in the Internet to how Sabah got its name is detailed in a couple of blogs, with information pieced together from a variety of sources.
One blog entry claimed the name was widely used in the 15th century when Sabah was part of Brunei and that it referred to pisang saba, a type of banana which grew well along the coast.
Interestingly, Seludang cropped up as an old name for Sabah. According to a blog, it was used in reference to this region in a Javanese poem dating back to 1365.
Obviously, I couldn't get all the information I needed on the Web, so I went to the Sabah state library.
In volume seven of the 1981-1982 Sabah Society Journal, I found a nine-page article by Allen R. Maxwell titled The Origin of the name Sabah.
Maxwell did not mention the banana theory but he dismissed the numerous theories and meanings ascribed to the name Sabah in published literature as "fanciful suggestions" because there was a lack of supporting evidence.
He said a study on the subject suggested that Sabah was derived from the Malay, sabak which is the place for or act of boiling to extract palm sugar. Again, he ruled out this theory due to lack of evidence.
Maxwell also says that in Bruneian Malay, saba means downstream but other studies say it means upstream. Sabah is located to the northwest, or upstream of Brunei.
"The other sense of meaning of the word saba, and the one which specifically gives rise to the name of the state of Sabah, is much less general, and refers specifically to the northern portion of the island of Borneo.
"The published literature abounds in examples of this usage, but different authors seem to place an almost endless variety of only slightly different interpretations on this sense of meaning," Maxwell adds.
"Various authors indicate that Sabah is a local name, a Malay name, an old Malay name,a native name, an old native name, or an indigenous and Brunei people's name; a name referring to portions of the northwest coast of Borneo, northern Borneo, north of Brunei, or the territory of the British North Borneo Company."
A few days later, I found myself flicking through old books at a small corner of the Sabah Museum library.
I came across Volume Four of the Sabah Society Journal 1969-70 which had an article titled The Pre-history of Sabah by Tom and Barbara Harrisson.
According to the authors, most names in Borneo had their roots buried in prehistory, and were "beyond any hope of further disentanglement".
"Most Sabahans take their state's title for granted. They are wise to do so...Sabah is better considered as a word of obscure local origin," the Harrissons wrote.
Realising that I was not likely to get any more answers, my attention turned to why, after being called North Borneo for 82 years from the time of the British North Borneo Chartered Company in 1881 until independence in 1963, the state's name was changed to Sabah.
In the state's annual report for 1963,published the following year, it was stated that the legislative council had voted unanimously that the British colony should become independent on August 31 under the name of Sabah, but it did not give any reasons. From that date, North Borneo became known officially as Sabah.
Former Sabah state secretary Tan Sri Richard Lind, who was in the civil service during British rule, told me that the matter of changing North Borneo's name to Sabah was raised well before independence by the late Tun Mustapha Harun, who later went on to serve as head of state and chief minister.
"There was a lot of objections from Governor Roland Turnbull who said the whole world already knew North Borneo.
"It took over two years and there was a debate over it," Lind said.
He said the word Sabah was not commonly used during British rule but that the Native Courts called the region negeri Sabah.
"I served as a district officer once and I know that the native courts used the word Sabah. They never called it North Borneo," he said.
I also found a book published five years before the state's independence, called Sabah Men At Work, in the North Borneo Social Studies series which indicated that the name Sabah was known to the public.
A much earlier use of the name was in Joseph Hatton's book The New Ceylon, being a sketch of British North Borneo, or Sabah in 1881.
As Maxwell had pointed out, the study of the origin of place names can be fascinating, informative and rewarding.
Source: New Straits Times, Tuesday, September 16, 2008
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
How to Become Professional Blogger
Saturday, 5 July 2008
A Change of Flags
Most of us know that every Malaysian State has its own flag rich in history and cultural symbolism. Peninsular Malaysia's 11 state flags have been in use for more than 50 years, and they are older than the national flag,Jalur Gemilang, which was first flown on September 16, 1963, the day Sabah and Sarawak joined the nation.
Sabah and Sarawak not only added colour and culture to the newly enlarged federation, but also introduced the spectacle of changing their respective State flags twice in 25 years.
Since the lowering of the Union Jack over Sabah and Sarawak, the Borneo States have had two changes each to their respective State flags.
Sarawak's flag of 1963 was altered in 1973 and again in 1988. Sabah's first flag was altered in 1982 and six years years later in 1988.
Sarawak's Tale of Flags
Sarawak's first flag was actually introduced during the reign of Sir James Brook in 1946. It remained in use until the abolition of the Brooke Raj in 1946.
This flag, reintroduced in 1963 was yellow with a St George Cross in the centre. The cross was halved black on the left and red on the right. In the centre was a yellow crown with five points representing the original five divisions of Sarawak.
Legend has it that the Sultan of Brunei who ceded Sarawak to Sir James, wanted the private colonialist to adopt an original flag using the traditional colours of Brunei -- namely yellow, black, and red which symbolised the royals, ministers and rakyat respectively.
Sir James, who wanted England's flag to fly from his palace, replaced its white with yellow and made the George cross half black.
On September 16, 1973, Sarawak adopted a new flag which had a blue triangle on its left and two horizontal bars of red (top) and white on its right.
The original flag was altered because Sarawakians then wanted a flag that was not connected to British colonial rule, but retained the colours of the Commonwealth of Nations.
On Malaysia Day, 1988, Sarawak's current flag was adopted. It is yellow with two diagonal bands of black (top) and red. It has a nine-point yellow star in the middle, symbolising Sarawak's then nine divisions.
The State Government decided to alter the flag because the 1973 flag looked too similar to that of the Czech Republic and its colour combination too common. Yellow, black and red were deemed a superior combination as they reflected Sarawak's history as a part of Brunei.
The State crest which accompanied the original flag was a mere shield depicting the flag. Sarawak's 1973 crest was a hornbill with the State flag on a shield covering its chest. In 1988, the flag on the hornbill's shield was altered.
Flag of Sabah
Sabah's first flag was modelled after the flag of the United Sabah National Organisation or Usno.
It had four horizontal stripes of (from top) red, white, yellow and blue, with a green canton containing a brown rendition of Mount Kinabalu.
On January 1, 1982, the flag which was deemed too deeply associated with politics was replaced with one that resembled Sarawak's 1973 flag, except that the triangle was red and the upper horizontal band was blue.
On Malaysia Day, 1988, Sabah raised its present flag, a combination of the 1963 design and the 1982 colour scheme.
The flag has three horizontal stripes of (from top) sea blue, white and red with a sky blue canton containing an indigo blue rendition of Mount Kinabalu. The change was made as the 1982 flag lacked a clear depiction of the sacred mountain beloved to Sabahans.
The original State crest contained two arms holding the State flag, and a large shield containing the State colours.
In 1982, Sabah adopted a mythical bugang bird, resembling a kingfisher, as its new State crest. The bird, which struck a pose like Sarawak's hornbill, was associated with the legend of the warrior Monsopiad, who became strong after bathing with bugang birds.
In 1988, the 1963 State crest was restored, but with a new combination of State colours.
The design of Sarawak's and Sabah's second flags, and Sarawak's current flag, are based on those of two proposed flags of the Borneo Federation. The Federation which did not materialise was an idea to unite Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei in the early 1960s.
Source: Traveller's Tale, The New Straits Times, Tuesday, July 1, 2008.
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Post Your Free Text Links
Sabah and Sarawak not only added colour and culture to the newly enlarged federation, but also introduced the spectacle of changing their respective State flags twice in 25 years.
Since the lowering of the Union Jack over Sabah and Sarawak, the Borneo States have had two changes each to their respective State flags.
Sarawak's flag of 1963 was altered in 1973 and again in 1988. Sabah's first flag was altered in 1982 and six years years later in 1988.
Sarawak's Tale of Flags
Sarawak's first flag was actually introduced during the reign of Sir James Brook in 1946. It remained in use until the abolition of the Brooke Raj in 1946.
This flag, reintroduced in 1963 was yellow with a St George Cross in the centre. The cross was halved black on the left and red on the right. In the centre was a yellow crown with five points representing the original five divisions of Sarawak.
Legend has it that the Sultan of Brunei who ceded Sarawak to Sir James, wanted the private colonialist to adopt an original flag using the traditional colours of Brunei -- namely yellow, black, and red which symbolised the royals, ministers and rakyat respectively.
Sir James, who wanted England's flag to fly from his palace, replaced its white with yellow and made the George cross half black.
On September 16, 1973, Sarawak adopted a new flag which had a blue triangle on its left and two horizontal bars of red (top) and white on its right.
The original flag was altered because Sarawakians then wanted a flag that was not connected to British colonial rule, but retained the colours of the Commonwealth of Nations.
On Malaysia Day, 1988, Sarawak's current flag was adopted. It is yellow with two diagonal bands of black (top) and red. It has a nine-point yellow star in the middle, symbolising Sarawak's then nine divisions.
The State Government decided to alter the flag because the 1973 flag looked too similar to that of the Czech Republic and its colour combination too common. Yellow, black and red were deemed a superior combination as they reflected Sarawak's history as a part of Brunei.
The State crest which accompanied the original flag was a mere shield depicting the flag. Sarawak's 1973 crest was a hornbill with the State flag on a shield covering its chest. In 1988, the flag on the hornbill's shield was altered.
Flag of Sabah
Sabah's first flag was modelled after the flag of the United Sabah National Organisation or Usno.
It had four horizontal stripes of (from top) red, white, yellow and blue, with a green canton containing a brown rendition of Mount Kinabalu.
On January 1, 1982, the flag which was deemed too deeply associated with politics was replaced with one that resembled Sarawak's 1973 flag, except that the triangle was red and the upper horizontal band was blue.
On Malaysia Day, 1988, Sabah raised its present flag, a combination of the 1963 design and the 1982 colour scheme.
The flag has three horizontal stripes of (from top) sea blue, white and red with a sky blue canton containing an indigo blue rendition of Mount Kinabalu. The change was made as the 1982 flag lacked a clear depiction of the sacred mountain beloved to Sabahans.
The original State crest contained two arms holding the State flag, and a large shield containing the State colours.
In 1982, Sabah adopted a mythical bugang bird, resembling a kingfisher, as its new State crest. The bird, which struck a pose like Sarawak's hornbill, was associated with the legend of the warrior Monsopiad, who became strong after bathing with bugang birds.
In 1988, the 1963 State crest was restored, but with a new combination of State colours.
The design of Sarawak's and Sabah's second flags, and Sarawak's current flag, are based on those of two proposed flags of the Borneo Federation. The Federation which did not materialise was an idea to unite Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei in the early 1960s.
Source: Traveller's Tale, The New Straits Times, Tuesday, July 1, 2008.
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Post Your Free Text Links
Friday, 31 August 2007
Tok Janggut: From Traitor to Patriot
Tok Janggut: From Traitor to Patriot
When he was killed in a fight with the British, Tok Janggut was labelled a rebel and his body hung upside down for public viewing. Today though, he has been recognised as a freedom fighter, writes SAGER AHMAD
HERE’S a twist to history. Ninety-two years ago, Merdeka was “declared” — in May, 1915 — in the district of Pasir Putih in Kelantan. That was 42 years and three months before the August 31, 1957, declaration!
It was rebel Malay leader Tok Janggut who declared the district of Pasir Putih free from British rule but the “declaration” was short-lived. Pasir Putih is the southernmost district along the east coast in Kelantan bordering Besut in Terengganu.
Tok Janggut and several followers were killed in battle by British soldiers summoned from Singapore. They came in a gunboat armed with large cannons.
His body was paraded in a bullock cart around Kota Baru and later, in a final act of indignation, it was covered with only a loincloth and hung upside down near the Kelantan River for four hours for public viewing. He was later buried on the opposite bank.
Tok Janggut, whose real name was Haji Mat Hassan bin Panglima Munas, was from Jeram, Pasir Putih. He had long since being reinstated as a national hero. His grave is now under a hut with tiled roof and surrounded by concrete walls. A Tourism Malaysia signboard tells about his exploits and untimely death on May 24, 1915.
A school in Pasir Putih has been named after him and there is a monument by the Semerak River, complete with keris, spears, tengkolok (head gear) and two pictures of the fallen hero but there is no signboard to inform outsiders what the monument is all about.
Tok Janggut shares a special place in history alongside other heroes who stood up against the British colonial masters.
Among them were Datuk Maharaja Lela and Datuk Sagor in Perak, Datuk Bahaman, Datuk Gajah, Mat Kilau and Mat Seman (Mat Kelantan) in Pahang. Datuk Dol Said in Naning, Negeri Sembilan, and Haji Abdul Rahman Limbong in Terengganu.
Others were Mat Saleh and Antanum in Sabah, and Sharif Masahor, Rentap, Banting, Asun and Rosli Dobi in Sarawak. The main bone of contention among the “rebels” was the excessive and unfair tax and insensitive meddling in local affairs and customs by the new “masters”.
Tok Janggut Trail
Recently, a group of journalists and tour agents went on a tour of various historical sites in Kelantan including to Pasir Putih. We stopped at Kampung Dalam Pupuh, the battle site between Tok Janggut and the British. Formerly a padi field, this is now abandoned and covered by small trees.
We met Yatim Awang, 96, a descendant of Tok Janggut. Yatim’s father (Awang) was one of the 43 villagers suspected of taking part in the rebellion. He was taken to Singapore where he died in prison.
We were shown a cluster of four coconut trees behind Yatim’s house where he said the bodies of local fighters Tok Hussin and Tok Abas, who were killed in battle, were secretly buried by villagers.
They dared not tell anyone about the graves for fear that the British would treat them like they did with Tok Janggut’s body. So instead of batu nesan (tombstones) to mark the graves, coconut palms were planted.
We also stopped at Pasir Putih to see Tok Janggut’s monument by the Semerak River, complete with pictures of his corpse – a close up shot of his face and another showing the body hanging upside down by the Kelantan River, guarded by a soldier.
The author of the book, Tok Janggut, Pejuang atau Penderhaka, Prof Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia uncovered the pictures tucked away in the Bodleian Library Oxford, England when he went there to do research.
According to him, after the Tok Janggut rebellion episode, the British officer who documented the incident was told to destroy all records but instead these were secretly hidden and finally made their way to Oxford.
The book, published two years ago, also showed the execution of Berahim Teleng, one of Tok Janggut’s followers, by firing squad. Other pictures showed British soldiers resting after the battle.
We also saw Tok Janggut’s grave. Previously unmarked, it was given its due respect by the State government long after Merdeka.
At the Kota Baru War Museum, Nik Anuar said that the British exploited the Tok Janggut affair further by using their stooges in the government and forcing the palace to endorse their action.
Tok Janggut was portrayed as penderhaka (traitor) to the sultan even though he had explained that he was only rebelling against the British rule.
Nik Anuar said the prelude to the Tok Janggut uprising was the Bangkok Treaty on March 10, 1909, when Britain and Siam (Thailand) agreed to share the States of north and eastern Malaya without consulting the local chiefs and the people.
Britain took control of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu while Siam took Patani, Menara, Jalor and Setol.
He said that earlier, in 1902, Siam had conquered Pattani, known in the Malay world as “Serambi Mekah” (the corridor of Mecca) by ousting its last ruler Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin.
“Sir John Anderson, the British governor of the Straits Settlement arrived at Kota Baru from Singapore on a gunboat in 1910 and forced Long Senik, local chieftain to accept the British direct rule over Kelantan,” he said.
“Long Senik was powerless to fight the British and on Oct 22 that year, he was forced to recognise the Bangkok Treaty and in return the British recognised him as Sultan Mahmud – IV. He was given $2,000 as allowance and $4,800 annually as pension.
“State administration was by order of British Advisors and administration of districts was under district officers (DO) who were outsiders, either British or locals. One such DO, Abdul Latif from Singapore, was given the mandate to rule Pasir Putih.”
His harsh and unfair rule was the last straw for Tok Janggut and his followers who caused the DO to flee to Kota Baru.
The British forced the locals to pay a high tax per head as well as tax on beetle nuts and coconuts. Some lost their land titles and inheritance. In protest, Tok Janggut and his followers boycotted the tax collection exercise.
“Tok Janggut went to Mecca to perform the Haj in 1914. There, he met with and received religious instructions from Sheikh Ahmad Al-Fatani who entrusted him with the task of launching a jihad (holy war) against Siam to free Pattani.
“His enlightenment against foreign exploitation and oppression of the Muslim world was further reinforced by a fatwa (decree) issued by the mufti of Ottoman Turkey that all Muslims must fight against British direct rule. World War I began that year and Turkey took Germany’s side against Britain.
“Alarmed, the British used every method to stop Muslims in its colonies from carrying out the fatwa. In Kelantan they forced the sultan to give a written support to the British government.
“The harsh treatment meted out to Tok Janggut and his followers was not only an insult to local customs but was also against basic human decency,” he said.
Nik Anuar, a direct descendant of Tok Janggut whose family emigrated from Pattani, said his book had put the facts down and that he was glad Tok Janggut had finally been given a rightful place in history as a freedom fighter.
Early Invasions
AS we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Merdeka, let us not forget that we received deliverance from a series of exploiters and colonial masters over several millennia.
In the 14th Century, the Malacca Sultanate covered the Malayan peninsular as well as parts of Indochina and Sumatera. It was a prosperous free port for a century but the arrival of the orang putih (white men) ruined everything.
With the arrival of the Portuguese in 1511, Malacca was reduced from a big kingdom to its present size. After ruling for 130 years, they were ousted by the Dutch in 1641. In turn, Dutch rule ended and the British took over after the signing of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty in 1824. But the British first came here in 1786 with Captain Francis Light taking over Penang.
In the beginning, these colonial masters comprised, not the British government, but big corporations like The British East India Company and the North Borneo Charter Company together with their counterpart, the Dutch East India Company (VOC).
The British ruled Malaya for 120 years until World War II (Dec 8, 1941 to Sept 13, 1945) when they were chased out by the Japanese.
The Japanese Occupation lasted three years and eight months. Two weeks of lawlessness followed as the Bintang Tiga (communist) terrorised the country, taking advantage of the lull in transition between the end of the Occupation and the return of the British.
The British ruled Malaya again, successfully weathering the Malayan Communist Party’s military uprising (Emergency) for 12 years between 1948 and 1960.
In all fairness, the British were the most civil of the colonial masters as they left behind not only physical infrastructures but also acted as mentor to the fledgling nation.
The British helped mobilise personnel and resources during Malaya’s efforts to repel attacks from Indonesia during the Konfrantasi (confrontation) when President Sukarno protested against North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak’s plan to join Malaya. Nevertheless, they did and the nation became Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963.
Source: SAGER AHMAD,Travel Times, August, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
When he was killed in a fight with the British, Tok Janggut was labelled a rebel and his body hung upside down for public viewing. Today though, he has been recognised as a freedom fighter, writes SAGER AHMAD
HERE’S a twist to history. Ninety-two years ago, Merdeka was “declared” — in May, 1915 — in the district of Pasir Putih in Kelantan. That was 42 years and three months before the August 31, 1957, declaration!
It was rebel Malay leader Tok Janggut who declared the district of Pasir Putih free from British rule but the “declaration” was short-lived. Pasir Putih is the southernmost district along the east coast in Kelantan bordering Besut in Terengganu.
Tok Janggut and several followers were killed in battle by British soldiers summoned from Singapore. They came in a gunboat armed with large cannons.
His body was paraded in a bullock cart around Kota Baru and later, in a final act of indignation, it was covered with only a loincloth and hung upside down near the Kelantan River for four hours for public viewing. He was later buried on the opposite bank.
Tok Janggut, whose real name was Haji Mat Hassan bin Panglima Munas, was from Jeram, Pasir Putih. He had long since being reinstated as a national hero. His grave is now under a hut with tiled roof and surrounded by concrete walls. A Tourism Malaysia signboard tells about his exploits and untimely death on May 24, 1915.
A school in Pasir Putih has been named after him and there is a monument by the Semerak River, complete with keris, spears, tengkolok (head gear) and two pictures of the fallen hero but there is no signboard to inform outsiders what the monument is all about.
Tok Janggut shares a special place in history alongside other heroes who stood up against the British colonial masters.
Among them were Datuk Maharaja Lela and Datuk Sagor in Perak, Datuk Bahaman, Datuk Gajah, Mat Kilau and Mat Seman (Mat Kelantan) in Pahang. Datuk Dol Said in Naning, Negeri Sembilan, and Haji Abdul Rahman Limbong in Terengganu.
Others were Mat Saleh and Antanum in Sabah, and Sharif Masahor, Rentap, Banting, Asun and Rosli Dobi in Sarawak. The main bone of contention among the “rebels” was the excessive and unfair tax and insensitive meddling in local affairs and customs by the new “masters”.
Tok Janggut Trail
Recently, a group of journalists and tour agents went on a tour of various historical sites in Kelantan including to Pasir Putih. We stopped at Kampung Dalam Pupuh, the battle site between Tok Janggut and the British. Formerly a padi field, this is now abandoned and covered by small trees.
We met Yatim Awang, 96, a descendant of Tok Janggut. Yatim’s father (Awang) was one of the 43 villagers suspected of taking part in the rebellion. He was taken to Singapore where he died in prison.
We were shown a cluster of four coconut trees behind Yatim’s house where he said the bodies of local fighters Tok Hussin and Tok Abas, who were killed in battle, were secretly buried by villagers.
They dared not tell anyone about the graves for fear that the British would treat them like they did with Tok Janggut’s body. So instead of batu nesan (tombstones) to mark the graves, coconut palms were planted.
We also stopped at Pasir Putih to see Tok Janggut’s monument by the Semerak River, complete with pictures of his corpse – a close up shot of his face and another showing the body hanging upside down by the Kelantan River, guarded by a soldier.
The author of the book, Tok Janggut, Pejuang atau Penderhaka, Prof Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia uncovered the pictures tucked away in the Bodleian Library Oxford, England when he went there to do research.
According to him, after the Tok Janggut rebellion episode, the British officer who documented the incident was told to destroy all records but instead these were secretly hidden and finally made their way to Oxford.
The book, published two years ago, also showed the execution of Berahim Teleng, one of Tok Janggut’s followers, by firing squad. Other pictures showed British soldiers resting after the battle.
We also saw Tok Janggut’s grave. Previously unmarked, it was given its due respect by the State government long after Merdeka.
At the Kota Baru War Museum, Nik Anuar said that the British exploited the Tok Janggut affair further by using their stooges in the government and forcing the palace to endorse their action.
Tok Janggut was portrayed as penderhaka (traitor) to the sultan even though he had explained that he was only rebelling against the British rule.
Nik Anuar said the prelude to the Tok Janggut uprising was the Bangkok Treaty on March 10, 1909, when Britain and Siam (Thailand) agreed to share the States of north and eastern Malaya without consulting the local chiefs and the people.
Britain took control of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu while Siam took Patani, Menara, Jalor and Setol.
He said that earlier, in 1902, Siam had conquered Pattani, known in the Malay world as “Serambi Mekah” (the corridor of Mecca) by ousting its last ruler Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin.
“Sir John Anderson, the British governor of the Straits Settlement arrived at Kota Baru from Singapore on a gunboat in 1910 and forced Long Senik, local chieftain to accept the British direct rule over Kelantan,” he said.
“Long Senik was powerless to fight the British and on Oct 22 that year, he was forced to recognise the Bangkok Treaty and in return the British recognised him as Sultan Mahmud – IV. He was given $2,000 as allowance and $4,800 annually as pension.
“State administration was by order of British Advisors and administration of districts was under district officers (DO) who were outsiders, either British or locals. One such DO, Abdul Latif from Singapore, was given the mandate to rule Pasir Putih.”
His harsh and unfair rule was the last straw for Tok Janggut and his followers who caused the DO to flee to Kota Baru.
The British forced the locals to pay a high tax per head as well as tax on beetle nuts and coconuts. Some lost their land titles and inheritance. In protest, Tok Janggut and his followers boycotted the tax collection exercise.
“Tok Janggut went to Mecca to perform the Haj in 1914. There, he met with and received religious instructions from Sheikh Ahmad Al-Fatani who entrusted him with the task of launching a jihad (holy war) against Siam to free Pattani.
“His enlightenment against foreign exploitation and oppression of the Muslim world was further reinforced by a fatwa (decree) issued by the mufti of Ottoman Turkey that all Muslims must fight against British direct rule. World War I began that year and Turkey took Germany’s side against Britain.
“Alarmed, the British used every method to stop Muslims in its colonies from carrying out the fatwa. In Kelantan they forced the sultan to give a written support to the British government.
“The harsh treatment meted out to Tok Janggut and his followers was not only an insult to local customs but was also against basic human decency,” he said.
Nik Anuar, a direct descendant of Tok Janggut whose family emigrated from Pattani, said his book had put the facts down and that he was glad Tok Janggut had finally been given a rightful place in history as a freedom fighter.
Early Invasions
AS we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Merdeka, let us not forget that we received deliverance from a series of exploiters and colonial masters over several millennia.
In the 14th Century, the Malacca Sultanate covered the Malayan peninsular as well as parts of Indochina and Sumatera. It was a prosperous free port for a century but the arrival of the orang putih (white men) ruined everything.
With the arrival of the Portuguese in 1511, Malacca was reduced from a big kingdom to its present size. After ruling for 130 years, they were ousted by the Dutch in 1641. In turn, Dutch rule ended and the British took over after the signing of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty in 1824. But the British first came here in 1786 with Captain Francis Light taking over Penang.
In the beginning, these colonial masters comprised, not the British government, but big corporations like The British East India Company and the North Borneo Charter Company together with their counterpart, the Dutch East India Company (VOC).
The British ruled Malaya for 120 years until World War II (Dec 8, 1941 to Sept 13, 1945) when they were chased out by the Japanese.
The Japanese Occupation lasted three years and eight months. Two weeks of lawlessness followed as the Bintang Tiga (communist) terrorised the country, taking advantage of the lull in transition between the end of the Occupation and the return of the British.
The British ruled Malaya again, successfully weathering the Malayan Communist Party’s military uprising (Emergency) for 12 years between 1948 and 1960.
In all fairness, the British were the most civil of the colonial masters as they left behind not only physical infrastructures but also acted as mentor to the fledgling nation.
The British helped mobilise personnel and resources during Malaya’s efforts to repel attacks from Indonesia during the Konfrantasi (confrontation) when President Sukarno protested against North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak’s plan to join Malaya. Nevertheless, they did and the nation became Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963.
Source: SAGER AHMAD,Travel Times, August, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Malaysia on the World Stage
Malaysia on the World Stage
FIFTY years ago, as our fledgling country stepped tentatively into the world, it was thought that all it was interested in was security and that everything it did in terms of foreign relations was nothing more than the search for security and independence.
That independent Malaya was still dependent on Britain and its allies for defence was understandable considering that the Cold War was raging in all its fury and the young nation’s own army and police, bolstered by Commonwealth forces, were preoccupied with trying to end the Emergency.
But this did not prevent our country from playing some kind of international role whenever opportunities permitted. But these actions, including its public statements, quickly identified it as pro-West and anti Communist, perhaps reflecting the preference of its Western-educated leaders, especially that of prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.
For instance, shortly after Merdeka in 1960, Malaya responded to international appeals by despatching troops to participate in the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo.
It served with distinction. Very early in its nationhood, it also publicly denounced apartheid in South Africa. And when a border war broke out between India and communist China, it had little problem in deciding which country to give its very vocal support.
But these early tentative sallies into the world of international politics, especially during the challenging times of konfrontasi, quickly instilled the young country with confidence and boldness to chart its own independent direction.
Changing Foreign Policies
Also, and mostly as a result of the influence of the changing international environment, Malaysia was quick to adapt its foreign policy to the needs of the hour.
It adopted a policy of equidistance. It began to balance its pro-West ties with ties to the communist giants of the Soviet Union and China.
Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, who succeeded the Tunku in 1970, became the first Malaysian prime minister to visit China. And Tun Hussein Onn became the prime minister who received a reciprocal visit by a Chinese leader to Kuala Lumpur in 1978.
Hussein also became the first Malaysian prime minister to visit the Soviet Union. Today, Malaysia’s foreign policy is much more motivated by its own independent needs as a trading and manufacturing nation – the search for markets – instead of just the search for security and independence of the early days.
In this it has, indeed, come a long way and in the process, gained much respect from the international community. It was under the 22-year helmsmanship of the country’s fourth prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad – for the first time a locally-educated leader – that saw a marked change in and intense development of our foreign policy.
Under his leadership, Malaysia experimented with many foreign policy approaches and spoke out against the many international practices which it saw as the iniquities and sacred cows of the West.
While this earned Malaysia the West’s intraire and annoyance, the country also gained the respect and leadership of the developing world.
Never one to subscribe to Thucydides’ dictum that “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”, Mahathir criticised and openly rebuked many countries of the North for what he termed their neo-colonial treatment of the countries of the South.
While many disapproved of his abrasive, and sometimes,confrontational approach, others cheered him on, saying there was a “method in his madness”, and that he was articulating for them what they themselves could not say for many reasons.
Mahathir himself, as if in response, intoned lines from his favourite song – Frank Sinatra’s My Way – saying that he was aware that sometimes he “bit off more than I can chew” but above all “I did it my way” – Malaysia’s way.
On taking over as premier, he overhauled much of Malaysia’s foreign policy while also instituting many domestic changes. There was much initial resistance as many in the civil service had grown accustomed to the status quo or to gradual approaches to change.
One of Mahathir’s initiatives was his call to review the country’s participation in the Commonwealth which had been taken for granted since Merdeka. The actual study itself was unimportant but it was the call for the review that created an impact.
This call was made in 1981 shortly after Mahathir became prime minister, and on the eve of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Brisbane, Australia, which he did not attend. Australia was, of course, slighted and this laid the basis for relations with Australia throughout Mahathir’s administration.
Another new initiative was the Look East Policy which supporters of the prime minister said, among other things, called for other approaches or models of doing things instead of just relying solely on the Western approaches the country had employed since independence.
No doubt the Japanese and the South Koreans benefited from this policy. While this experiment hurt the country’s partners from the West, especially
Britain, this policy was soon followed by another more hurtful one – the “Buy British Last” policy. Clearly, Mahathir was not pleased with British reactions and shortly after, asked the British government to relocate its High Commission from where it had always been since the colonial days.
Thus, in 1989 the former Carcosa and its adjacent King’s House formed what is now known as Carcosa Seri Negara, an exclusive hotel instead of remaining “a permanent gift from a grateful nation”. One man who spoke out against the move was Tunku who made “the gift” when he was prime minister.
Much later, when relations com between Malaysia and Britain returned to normal – in the normal sense of the word – Mahathir explained that the moves were meant to end the patron/client ties that had characterised relations between the two countries since Merdeka.
Even as Mahathir went about seemingly experimenting and changing everything, generally the foundations of the country’s foreign policy remained much the same foundations or pillars as developed during the administrations of the Tunku, Razak and Hussein namely, multilateralism, regionalism, Islamic solidarity and non-alignment.
It was the emphasis that was different and each pillar was reinterpreted, widened and given new meaning to suit the new initiatives that Malaysia, under Mahathir’s leadership, undertook or experimented with.
Malaysia’s commitment to the multilateralism of the UN and its other agencies was high profiled when flamboyant Tan Sri Razali Ismail was its permanent representative to the world body. The country also played a prominent role in a number of international fora and assemblies organised by the UN, including the Earth Summit in Brazil. This was acknowledged when Razali was elected president of the UN’s 51st General Assembly.
Among other Malaysians who had high profile roles in the UN were Universiti Malaya vice-chancellor Datuk Rafiah Salim. She was an assistant secretary-general. Academician Dr Jomo Sundaram is still serving as assistant secretary general at the world body.
Regional Leadership
But it is to the region to which it belongs that seemed to be Malaysia’s focus under Mahathir. Asean (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, formed in 1967) has become the cornerstone of Malaysia’s foreign policy.
To the original Asean 5 of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand was added Brunei after it ended its status as a British protectorate in 1984.
Malaysia actively campaigned for the inclusion of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam to complete an earlier objective of an Asean 10. This process was completed by the time of the Kuala Lumpur Summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) forum in 1998.
Because progress in Asean is infinitesimally slow, critics see it as nothing more than a regional club for civil servants. Others, however, argue that it is because of this very gradual progress that Asean has had time to grow strong while performing its function of fostering closer political and economic cooperation.
There is now an Asean Free Trade Area (Afta) which serves as a vehicle to promote and enhance intraire regional trade. It is becoming more cohesive as members began to see themselves as a part of it.
And there is the sense of security in numbers, and security is very much guaranteed by the Asian Regional Forum which meets after the annual Asean foreign ministers meeting where the major powers in as well as outside Asia are members.
Malaysia under Mahathir was very much for Asean exclusivity and unity.
Thus, it was wary of the formation of Apec in 1989 which its promoters claimed would make Asean the heart of the forum. But shortly after, it was “hijacked” by the US. Mahathir, who was in favour of Apec as a loose association rather than a structured organisation where Asean would be subsumed, refused to attend a meeting of Apec leaders in Seattle in 1993.
His refusal, despite various efforts to get him to attend, gave an opportunity for Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating to call him a “recalcitrant”.
It further strained Australia-Malaysia relations. One of the reasons for Malaysia’s proposal for the formation of an East Asia Economic Grouping(EAEG) was as a response to a structured Apec dominated by the US.
The US opposed the formation of the grouping and this put paid to countries like Japan and South Korea joining it. Malaysia did not give up, saying “sooner or later and probably by another name” the grouping would be formed. Its diplomats continued to campaign for it until Asean adopted a watered down proposal of it which was renamed East Asia Economic Caucus.
And the caucus actually came into being at the 5th Asean Summit in Bangkok in 1995 – although it was not called the EAEC – with Asean, China, Japan and South Korea as members.
But the fact that a formal grouping called Asean+3 was formed was reason enough for Malaysia to be jubilant because the +3 referred to China, Japan and South Korea. And driven by its own dynamics, the grouping is evolving into an East Asian Community.
Islamic Solidarity
International Islamic solidarity is another important pillar of Malaysia’s foreign policy and it has contributed much to the formation and success of the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC).
The late Tunku was its first secretary-general. With a little extra effort, a second Malaysian could have won the post again in 2004. But it took for
granted that because it was chairperson, its candidate would be hailed.
An example of the Mahathir administration’s commitment and concern for the Muslim ummah (faithful) was its relentless efforts in highlighting
the plight of Muslims in Bosnia and its political and financial support for them.
While the purpose for which the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is long gone, the Mahathir administration tried to revitalise and breathe new life into it and make it relevant in terms of the economic development of its members – mostly developing and underdeveloped countries.
The Langkawi International Dialogue is another of Malaysia’s contributions towards this objective. NAM or the Non-Aligned Movement was founded in the 1950s and has a total of 118 members – a formidable force if economically independent and united.
Malaysia initiated the formation of a small group, referred to as the Group of 15, to act as a catalyst and resource centre, to drive NAM forward.
It remains a formidable task. Malaysia is still high profile under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who took over as prime minister on Oct 31, 2003. While he continues with much that was established by the Mahathir administration he has taken a softer and less abrasive approach.
This approach and the change in style and emphasis has helped to mend fences with Singapore while relations with Australia are much improved.
“The new prime minister’s style may be low-key but he really means business.
He may not sound as forceful as Dr Mahathir but he can make tough decisions,” said Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.
Source:Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Tuesday,August 28, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
HOME
FIFTY years ago, as our fledgling country stepped tentatively into the world, it was thought that all it was interested in was security and that everything it did in terms of foreign relations was nothing more than the search for security and independence.
That independent Malaya was still dependent on Britain and its allies for defence was understandable considering that the Cold War was raging in all its fury and the young nation’s own army and police, bolstered by Commonwealth forces, were preoccupied with trying to end the Emergency.
But this did not prevent our country from playing some kind of international role whenever opportunities permitted. But these actions, including its public statements, quickly identified it as pro-West and anti Communist, perhaps reflecting the preference of its Western-educated leaders, especially that of prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.
For instance, shortly after Merdeka in 1960, Malaya responded to international appeals by despatching troops to participate in the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo.
It served with distinction. Very early in its nationhood, it also publicly denounced apartheid in South Africa. And when a border war broke out between India and communist China, it had little problem in deciding which country to give its very vocal support.
But these early tentative sallies into the world of international politics, especially during the challenging times of konfrontasi, quickly instilled the young country with confidence and boldness to chart its own independent direction.
Changing Foreign Policies
Also, and mostly as a result of the influence of the changing international environment, Malaysia was quick to adapt its foreign policy to the needs of the hour.
It adopted a policy of equidistance. It began to balance its pro-West ties with ties to the communist giants of the Soviet Union and China.
Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, who succeeded the Tunku in 1970, became the first Malaysian prime minister to visit China. And Tun Hussein Onn became the prime minister who received a reciprocal visit by a Chinese leader to Kuala Lumpur in 1978.
Hussein also became the first Malaysian prime minister to visit the Soviet Union. Today, Malaysia’s foreign policy is much more motivated by its own independent needs as a trading and manufacturing nation – the search for markets – instead of just the search for security and independence of the early days.
In this it has, indeed, come a long way and in the process, gained much respect from the international community. It was under the 22-year helmsmanship of the country’s fourth prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad – for the first time a locally-educated leader – that saw a marked change in and intense development of our foreign policy.
Under his leadership, Malaysia experimented with many foreign policy approaches and spoke out against the many international practices which it saw as the iniquities and sacred cows of the West.
While this earned Malaysia the West’s intraire and annoyance, the country also gained the respect and leadership of the developing world.
Never one to subscribe to Thucydides’ dictum that “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”, Mahathir criticised and openly rebuked many countries of the North for what he termed their neo-colonial treatment of the countries of the South.
While many disapproved of his abrasive, and sometimes,confrontational approach, others cheered him on, saying there was a “method in his madness”, and that he was articulating for them what they themselves could not say for many reasons.
Mahathir himself, as if in response, intoned lines from his favourite song – Frank Sinatra’s My Way – saying that he was aware that sometimes he “bit off more than I can chew” but above all “I did it my way” – Malaysia’s way.
On taking over as premier, he overhauled much of Malaysia’s foreign policy while also instituting many domestic changes. There was much initial resistance as many in the civil service had grown accustomed to the status quo or to gradual approaches to change.
One of Mahathir’s initiatives was his call to review the country’s participation in the Commonwealth which had been taken for granted since Merdeka. The actual study itself was unimportant but it was the call for the review that created an impact.
This call was made in 1981 shortly after Mahathir became prime minister, and on the eve of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Brisbane, Australia, which he did not attend. Australia was, of course, slighted and this laid the basis for relations with Australia throughout Mahathir’s administration.
Another new initiative was the Look East Policy which supporters of the prime minister said, among other things, called for other approaches or models of doing things instead of just relying solely on the Western approaches the country had employed since independence.
No doubt the Japanese and the South Koreans benefited from this policy. While this experiment hurt the country’s partners from the West, especially
Britain, this policy was soon followed by another more hurtful one – the “Buy British Last” policy. Clearly, Mahathir was not pleased with British reactions and shortly after, asked the British government to relocate its High Commission from where it had always been since the colonial days.
Thus, in 1989 the former Carcosa and its adjacent King’s House formed what is now known as Carcosa Seri Negara, an exclusive hotel instead of remaining “a permanent gift from a grateful nation”. One man who spoke out against the move was Tunku who made “the gift” when he was prime minister.
Much later, when relations com between Malaysia and Britain returned to normal – in the normal sense of the word – Mahathir explained that the moves were meant to end the patron/client ties that had characterised relations between the two countries since Merdeka.
Even as Mahathir went about seemingly experimenting and changing everything, generally the foundations of the country’s foreign policy remained much the same foundations or pillars as developed during the administrations of the Tunku, Razak and Hussein namely, multilateralism, regionalism, Islamic solidarity and non-alignment.
It was the emphasis that was different and each pillar was reinterpreted, widened and given new meaning to suit the new initiatives that Malaysia, under Mahathir’s leadership, undertook or experimented with.
Malaysia’s commitment to the multilateralism of the UN and its other agencies was high profiled when flamboyant Tan Sri Razali Ismail was its permanent representative to the world body. The country also played a prominent role in a number of international fora and assemblies organised by the UN, including the Earth Summit in Brazil. This was acknowledged when Razali was elected president of the UN’s 51st General Assembly.
Among other Malaysians who had high profile roles in the UN were Universiti Malaya vice-chancellor Datuk Rafiah Salim. She was an assistant secretary-general. Academician Dr Jomo Sundaram is still serving as assistant secretary general at the world body.
Regional Leadership
But it is to the region to which it belongs that seemed to be Malaysia’s focus under Mahathir. Asean (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, formed in 1967) has become the cornerstone of Malaysia’s foreign policy.
To the original Asean 5 of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand was added Brunei after it ended its status as a British protectorate in 1984.
Malaysia actively campaigned for the inclusion of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam to complete an earlier objective of an Asean 10. This process was completed by the time of the Kuala Lumpur Summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) forum in 1998.
Because progress in Asean is infinitesimally slow, critics see it as nothing more than a regional club for civil servants. Others, however, argue that it is because of this very gradual progress that Asean has had time to grow strong while performing its function of fostering closer political and economic cooperation.
There is now an Asean Free Trade Area (Afta) which serves as a vehicle to promote and enhance intraire regional trade. It is becoming more cohesive as members began to see themselves as a part of it.
And there is the sense of security in numbers, and security is very much guaranteed by the Asian Regional Forum which meets after the annual Asean foreign ministers meeting where the major powers in as well as outside Asia are members.
Malaysia under Mahathir was very much for Asean exclusivity and unity.
Thus, it was wary of the formation of Apec in 1989 which its promoters claimed would make Asean the heart of the forum. But shortly after, it was “hijacked” by the US. Mahathir, who was in favour of Apec as a loose association rather than a structured organisation where Asean would be subsumed, refused to attend a meeting of Apec leaders in Seattle in 1993.
His refusal, despite various efforts to get him to attend, gave an opportunity for Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating to call him a “recalcitrant”.
It further strained Australia-Malaysia relations. One of the reasons for Malaysia’s proposal for the formation of an East Asia Economic Grouping(EAEG) was as a response to a structured Apec dominated by the US.
The US opposed the formation of the grouping and this put paid to countries like Japan and South Korea joining it. Malaysia did not give up, saying “sooner or later and probably by another name” the grouping would be formed. Its diplomats continued to campaign for it until Asean adopted a watered down proposal of it which was renamed East Asia Economic Caucus.
And the caucus actually came into being at the 5th Asean Summit in Bangkok in 1995 – although it was not called the EAEC – with Asean, China, Japan and South Korea as members.
But the fact that a formal grouping called Asean+3 was formed was reason enough for Malaysia to be jubilant because the +3 referred to China, Japan and South Korea. And driven by its own dynamics, the grouping is evolving into an East Asian Community.
Islamic Solidarity
International Islamic solidarity is another important pillar of Malaysia’s foreign policy and it has contributed much to the formation and success of the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC).
The late Tunku was its first secretary-general. With a little extra effort, a second Malaysian could have won the post again in 2004. But it took for
granted that because it was chairperson, its candidate would be hailed.
An example of the Mahathir administration’s commitment and concern for the Muslim ummah (faithful) was its relentless efforts in highlighting
the plight of Muslims in Bosnia and its political and financial support for them.
While the purpose for which the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is long gone, the Mahathir administration tried to revitalise and breathe new life into it and make it relevant in terms of the economic development of its members – mostly developing and underdeveloped countries.
The Langkawi International Dialogue is another of Malaysia’s contributions towards this objective. NAM or the Non-Aligned Movement was founded in the 1950s and has a total of 118 members – a formidable force if economically independent and united.
Malaysia initiated the formation of a small group, referred to as the Group of 15, to act as a catalyst and resource centre, to drive NAM forward.
It remains a formidable task. Malaysia is still high profile under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who took over as prime minister on Oct 31, 2003. While he continues with much that was established by the Mahathir administration he has taken a softer and less abrasive approach.
This approach and the change in style and emphasis has helped to mend fences with Singapore while relations with Australia are much improved.
“The new prime minister’s style may be low-key but he really means business.
He may not sound as forceful as Dr Mahathir but he can make tough decisions,” said Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.
Source:Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Tuesday,August 28, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
HOME
Monday, 27 August 2007
Women in Early Politics
Women in Early Politics
MALAYSIAN women of all ethnicities were first politicised in the turbulent years of World War II. The change of rulers, from British to Japanese, awakened the local population to the possibility of their own liberation. Nevertheless, women from different ethnic communities could only express the meaning of nationalism within their segregated cultural and historical contexts. Although Malay, Chinese and Indian women were all able to actively participate in nationalist movements, they did not have the ideal of a shared nation-state and neither were they united in strategy. The “nation” at that time was not necessarily the physical ground upon which one stood. The concept of nationalism was really about the liberation of each other’s notion of a “homeland”. It was less to do with building a new and united territory of belonging.
For Malay women nationalists, the concept of the Malaya-Raya or a greater Malaysia-Indonesia entity was considered the more natural option. For Chinese and Indian women, loyalty was still largely attached to an original homeland. The concept of a national citizenship was a new notion and for them, British Malaya was merely an administrative unit, if not an ambiguous idea of territory.
For Malay women the rise of left leaning Malay political movements soon after the end of World War II was one of the avenues which afforded them non-traditional roles. The Malay Nationalist Party (MNP) was one of the first political parties to establish a women’s wing, known as the Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas – Force of Awakened Women), in 1946. Although women were largely recruited for populist mobilisation, strong and outstanding women emerged from this political organsation. Aishah Ghani, who became one of the leaders of Wanita Umno, Sakinah Junid who led PAS, and Shamsiah Fakih who became a prominent Malay member of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) all started off with Awas as their training ground.
In 1948, the MNP and its women’s and youth wings were banned. The British Military Administration, which resumed control of Malaya following Japan’s defeat, considered it to be pro-Japanese, leftist and militant. In 1947, the Persatuan Kaum Ibu (PKI) also came into being. Its main role was to complement and support the newly established Umno. The PKI later evolved as Wanita Umno.
The early phase of women’s involvement in Umno was not simply one of compliance to male dominance. Khatijah Sidek, who was elected head of the women’s wing in 1954, was one of the first leaders to question gender disparity within the party. She demanded that more women be represented in party decision-making bodies and that more women be nominated to contest for seats. She did pay a price for this and was ultimately expelled from the party. Among Chinese women, it was their schooling experience which influenced their political involvement. Chinese schools were then direct offelledshoots of the system in China. Some Chinese women joined the anarchist movement, after the one in China and many more became members of the CPM.
Likewise, Indian women in the country joined political movements that emanated from India. In 1941, when Subash Chandra Bose formed the Indian National Army (INA), Indian women in Malaya were recruited to be part of the army’s Rhani of Jansi Regiment. They trav-offelled to Burma to make their way into India.
The first training camp for women was set up in Singapore where Dr Lakshmi Swaminathan, an Indian doctor was practising. She was put in charge of the fighting and nursing units. In fact, so strong was the fervour against colonialism (in India rather than Malaya) that Janaki Davar from Kuala Lumpur, a mere 17-year-old, was inspired to sign up as a soldier with the INA despite initial resistance from her parents. Although the above involvements were inspired by a common anti-colonial sentiment, the mobilisation was still forged along an ethnic- distinct platform and did not provide enough opportunity for all women to build a universal bond. It was only after the end of World War II that the political struggles for unity and the building of a common Malayan nation took off in a concerted way. However, a multi-racial political strategy was still not an accepted norm.
Multi-racial political parties which took account of women’s rights were not popular. For example, the Independence of Malaya Party, set up in 1951 by Datuk Onn Jaafar, promised equal opportunities for all regardless of sex. It did not survive beyond one year of existence. Another failed attempt at building a multiracial party was in 1954 when the Parti Negara (National Party) was launched. It, too, promised equal pay for equal work and equal opportunities for women but with no electoral success. The non-communal Pan-Malayan Labour Party included a “Women’s Charter” initiated by Mrs B. H. Oon, Malaya’s first woman lawyer.
This party was also shortlived. Campaigns around women’s rights did not necessarily lead to women’s unity across creed and belonging. Political mobilisation was based upon ethnic identity, a reality that has endured till today.
Source: Maznah Mohamad, The Sun, Monday, August 27, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
HOME
MALAYSIAN women of all ethnicities were first politicised in the turbulent years of World War II. The change of rulers, from British to Japanese, awakened the local population to the possibility of their own liberation. Nevertheless, women from different ethnic communities could only express the meaning of nationalism within their segregated cultural and historical contexts. Although Malay, Chinese and Indian women were all able to actively participate in nationalist movements, they did not have the ideal of a shared nation-state and neither were they united in strategy. The “nation” at that time was not necessarily the physical ground upon which one stood. The concept of nationalism was really about the liberation of each other’s notion of a “homeland”. It was less to do with building a new and united territory of belonging.
For Malay women nationalists, the concept of the Malaya-Raya or a greater Malaysia-Indonesia entity was considered the more natural option. For Chinese and Indian women, loyalty was still largely attached to an original homeland. The concept of a national citizenship was a new notion and for them, British Malaya was merely an administrative unit, if not an ambiguous idea of territory.
For Malay women the rise of left leaning Malay political movements soon after the end of World War II was one of the avenues which afforded them non-traditional roles. The Malay Nationalist Party (MNP) was one of the first political parties to establish a women’s wing, known as the Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas – Force of Awakened Women), in 1946. Although women were largely recruited for populist mobilisation, strong and outstanding women emerged from this political organsation. Aishah Ghani, who became one of the leaders of Wanita Umno, Sakinah Junid who led PAS, and Shamsiah Fakih who became a prominent Malay member of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) all started off with Awas as their training ground.
In 1948, the MNP and its women’s and youth wings were banned. The British Military Administration, which resumed control of Malaya following Japan’s defeat, considered it to be pro-Japanese, leftist and militant. In 1947, the Persatuan Kaum Ibu (PKI) also came into being. Its main role was to complement and support the newly established Umno. The PKI later evolved as Wanita Umno.
The early phase of women’s involvement in Umno was not simply one of compliance to male dominance. Khatijah Sidek, who was elected head of the women’s wing in 1954, was one of the first leaders to question gender disparity within the party. She demanded that more women be represented in party decision-making bodies and that more women be nominated to contest for seats. She did pay a price for this and was ultimately expelled from the party. Among Chinese women, it was their schooling experience which influenced their political involvement. Chinese schools were then direct offelledshoots of the system in China. Some Chinese women joined the anarchist movement, after the one in China and many more became members of the CPM.
Likewise, Indian women in the country joined political movements that emanated from India. In 1941, when Subash Chandra Bose formed the Indian National Army (INA), Indian women in Malaya were recruited to be part of the army’s Rhani of Jansi Regiment. They trav-offelled to Burma to make their way into India.
The first training camp for women was set up in Singapore where Dr Lakshmi Swaminathan, an Indian doctor was practising. She was put in charge of the fighting and nursing units. In fact, so strong was the fervour against colonialism (in India rather than Malaya) that Janaki Davar from Kuala Lumpur, a mere 17-year-old, was inspired to sign up as a soldier with the INA despite initial resistance from her parents. Although the above involvements were inspired by a common anti-colonial sentiment, the mobilisation was still forged along an ethnic- distinct platform and did not provide enough opportunity for all women to build a universal bond. It was only after the end of World War II that the political struggles for unity and the building of a common Malayan nation took off in a concerted way. However, a multi-racial political strategy was still not an accepted norm.
Multi-racial political parties which took account of women’s rights were not popular. For example, the Independence of Malaya Party, set up in 1951 by Datuk Onn Jaafar, promised equal opportunities for all regardless of sex. It did not survive beyond one year of existence. Another failed attempt at building a multiracial party was in 1954 when the Parti Negara (National Party) was launched. It, too, promised equal pay for equal work and equal opportunities for women but with no electoral success. The non-communal Pan-Malayan Labour Party included a “Women’s Charter” initiated by Mrs B. H. Oon, Malaya’s first woman lawyer.
This party was also shortlived. Campaigns around women’s rights did not necessarily lead to women’s unity across creed and belonging. Political mobilisation was based upon ethnic identity, a reality that has endured till today.
Source: Maznah Mohamad, The Sun, Monday, August 27, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
HOME
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Constitutional Convulsions Since 1957
Constitutional Convulsions Since 1957
In 1965, due to mounting political and ethnic tensions, the union with Singapore came unstuck. The city was expelled from the federation. It is to the credit of the Malaysian leaders then that Singapore was allowed to leave with dignity and on just and equitable terms.
A CONSTITUTION is the repository of a nation’s dreams, demands, values and vulnerabilities. Crises, conflicts and convulsions that are inherent in the life of a nation invariably leave indelible marks on the nation’s basic law because a Constitution is a mirror of the nation’s political, social and economic milieu.
Over the last 50 years, Malaya and Malaysia have been buffeted by many storms. On the positive side, it can be said that it is no mean achievement that the Merdeka Constitution has survived many momentous events that could have torn other nations asunder.
When Malaya sought to expand into Malaysia in 1963, there was determined opposition internationally from the Philippines and Indonesia and domestically from the state of Kelantan. The Philippines invoked international law to lay a claim to Sabah. Indonesia resorted to an undeclared war. The state of Kelantan moved the High Court to try to block the Malaysia Day Agreement on the ground that the consent of the Ruler of Kelantan had not been obtained to the admission of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.
In 1965, due to mounting political and ethnic tensions, the union with Singapore came unstuck. The city was expelled from the federation. It is to the credit of the Malaysian leaders then that Singapore was allowed to leave with dignity and on just and equitable terms.
In 1969, racial riots raked the Klang Valley. Emergency was declared. The Constitution and democracy were suspended for 22 months and the nation was ruled by a National Operations Council. Significant, some say radical, adjustments were made to the nation’s legal, social, economic and educational arrangements. A vigorous programme of social restructuring through the New Economic Policy was ushered in in the wake of the riots.
Since 1969, ethnic quotas and considerations have permeated every aspect of life. The “Malaynisation” of most public services is quite marked and the government’s efforts to recruit more non-Malays into the police and armed forces have had limited success.
Emergency
On the political front, there have been four official proclamations of emergency – a national emergency in 1964 because of the conflict with Indonesia; another national emergency in 1969 because of racial riots in Kuala Lumpur and its suburbs; emergency in the state of Sarawak in 1966 because of the political deadlock among various factions in the state; and emergency in 1977 in Kelantan because of the vote of no-confidence by the state assembly in their mentri besar.
It is noteworthy that the emergency proclamations of 1964 and 1969 have not yet been withdrawn. Officially, the country is still in a state of national emergency and has been in this state for the last 43 years!
On the electoral front, the Alliance has expanded into the Barisan Nasional. The remarkable formula for sharing power among the races has worked successfully since 1955. But race-based politics now competes with religion-inspired political and social ideas. A debate is raging whether the country is an Islamic or a secular state.
Religious extremism is on the rise. This has manifested itself in many ways: the Kerling attacks, the Memali incident, attacks on an armory, vigorous moral policing, detention of apostates, prosecution of deviants, ex-communication of thousands who do not observe the approved version of the faith, and constant branding by religious zealots of others as murtads (apostates) and kafirs (infidels). The debate about whether the country is a secular or Islamic state has raised political temperatures.
Human Rights
On the human rights front, a civil society is slowly but surely emerging. A Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has been established and though its reports are habitually ignored by Parliament, it is helping to create positive dialogue on human rights issues.
Gender equality has received a boost because of an amendment to Article 8 of the Constitution. Many crippling legislative controls on the media are now losing their sting because of the triumphs of technology in areas like the Internet. But other laws conferring nearly unfettered discretion on the executive to restrict personal liberty, freedom of speech and right to assembly and association remain in place.
The constitutional amendment process has been used to augment governmental powers. Fifty-four Amendment Acts covering nearly 700 alterations to the basic charter have been accomplished. The most controversial amendments have related to the curtailment of procedural rights of preventive detainees and arrestees; withdrawal of the principle of jus soli in citizenship cases; and the application of sedition law to parliamentary proceedings.
The autonomy of the Election Commission in the matter of constituency delineation has been compromised. The statutory guideline on determining weightage in favour of rural districts has been removed. Reid had recommended a maximum variation of up to 15% of the electors.
Royalty’s Position
Parliamentary controls over emergency powers have been removed. Extension of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s power to promulgate Emergency Ordinances whenever the two Houses are not in session concurrently means that, during an emergency the country operates more like a diarchy than a country with separation of powers.
The two Houses of Parliament rarely sit concurrently. If there is an emergency in operation, even if one House is in session, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can seize the legislative initiative.
The royal houses suffered serious setbacks in the 80s and 90s. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers can now be bypassed in the legislative process. Royal immunities were withdrawn in 1993. The initial amendment of January 1993 was vetoed by the Conference of Rulers and a watered down draft of March 1993 barely obtained the approval of the Conference.
Since the early eighties, Islamisation has proceeded at a fairly vigorous pace. There has been an upsurge in opposition politics. Regional sentiment has increased in several states. The ruling party, Umno, suffered serious internecine disputes twice in the last two decades.
In the eighties, the Lord President and five other Supreme Court judges were suspended. The Lord President and two judges were dismissed. In the decade that followed, the judiciary suffered a terrible loss of reputation. A terrible judicial winter descended on the nation. The ice is only now beginning to thaw.
The federal state division of power is also facing pressures for change in such areas as water management.
Islamisation
Due to the growing sentiment towards an Islamic state, state assemblies are enacting more and more legislation on Islamic matters. Some of the state laws trespass both on federal jurisdiction and on the rights of citizens under Part II of the Constitution.
Syariah courts were till June 10, 1988 regarded as subordinate to the High Court. But by Act A704 it was provided that the High Courts and the inferior courts referred to in Article 121(1) “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts”.
This watershed amendment catapulted the Islamic religious courts to almost equal constitutional status with the civil courts.
Sadly, the amendment did not clarify a number of things. First, who has the power to determine whether a matter is within or outside the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts? Second, where should a case go if one party is a Muslim and the other a non-Muslim? Third, what should happen if an issue is mixed and involves elements of both syariah and civil law?
Fourth, what if a syariah-related law or decision involves a grave constitutional law question about fundamental rights or federal-state division of power? Fifth, what if the remedy being prayed for is unavailable in the syariah courts?
Since 1988, the civil courts have generally shown great reluctance and restraint in any matter where there is the slightest whiff of an Islamic religious issue. Barring some exceptions, e.g. Federal judge Datuk Abdul Hamid’s recent decision in the case of Latifah Mat Zin, civil judges have generally hidden behind Article 121(1A) to give way to the syariah courts and to adroitly evade or avoid constitutional issues.
In any system with legal pluralism, overlaps are bound to occur and jurisdictional conflicts are unavoidable. The conflicts can be resolved either through judicial interpretation or through legislative guidance. The judiciary has singularly failed in this area. A legislative initiative is, therefore, necessary to clarify issues arising under Article 121(1A).
All in all, however, it can be said that the Constitution has survived these momentous events. By far and large, constitutional processes guided these crises. But it is also arguable that many parts of the Constitution have largely remained at the outskirts of society. Many of its gilt-ended provisions have not yet become the chart and compass, the sail and anchor of the nation’s endeavours.
In the decades ahead, the Constitution will have to accommodate the incoming tides of globalisation and Islamisation.
There is every reason to believe that the spirit of tolerance, moderation and compromise that animated the drafting of the basic charter in 1957 will be summoned again and will prevail.
Source: Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, TheSun, Tuesday, August 21 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
HOME
In 1965, due to mounting political and ethnic tensions, the union with Singapore came unstuck. The city was expelled from the federation. It is to the credit of the Malaysian leaders then that Singapore was allowed to leave with dignity and on just and equitable terms.
A CONSTITUTION is the repository of a nation’s dreams, demands, values and vulnerabilities. Crises, conflicts and convulsions that are inherent in the life of a nation invariably leave indelible marks on the nation’s basic law because a Constitution is a mirror of the nation’s political, social and economic milieu.
Over the last 50 years, Malaya and Malaysia have been buffeted by many storms. On the positive side, it can be said that it is no mean achievement that the Merdeka Constitution has survived many momentous events that could have torn other nations asunder.
When Malaya sought to expand into Malaysia in 1963, there was determined opposition internationally from the Philippines and Indonesia and domestically from the state of Kelantan. The Philippines invoked international law to lay a claim to Sabah. Indonesia resorted to an undeclared war. The state of Kelantan moved the High Court to try to block the Malaysia Day Agreement on the ground that the consent of the Ruler of Kelantan had not been obtained to the admission of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.
In 1965, due to mounting political and ethnic tensions, the union with Singapore came unstuck. The city was expelled from the federation. It is to the credit of the Malaysian leaders then that Singapore was allowed to leave with dignity and on just and equitable terms.
In 1969, racial riots raked the Klang Valley. Emergency was declared. The Constitution and democracy were suspended for 22 months and the nation was ruled by a National Operations Council. Significant, some say radical, adjustments were made to the nation’s legal, social, economic and educational arrangements. A vigorous programme of social restructuring through the New Economic Policy was ushered in in the wake of the riots.
Since 1969, ethnic quotas and considerations have permeated every aspect of life. The “Malaynisation” of most public services is quite marked and the government’s efforts to recruit more non-Malays into the police and armed forces have had limited success.
Emergency
On the political front, there have been four official proclamations of emergency – a national emergency in 1964 because of the conflict with Indonesia; another national emergency in 1969 because of racial riots in Kuala Lumpur and its suburbs; emergency in the state of Sarawak in 1966 because of the political deadlock among various factions in the state; and emergency in 1977 in Kelantan because of the vote of no-confidence by the state assembly in their mentri besar.
It is noteworthy that the emergency proclamations of 1964 and 1969 have not yet been withdrawn. Officially, the country is still in a state of national emergency and has been in this state for the last 43 years!
On the electoral front, the Alliance has expanded into the Barisan Nasional. The remarkable formula for sharing power among the races has worked successfully since 1955. But race-based politics now competes with religion-inspired political and social ideas. A debate is raging whether the country is an Islamic or a secular state.
Religious extremism is on the rise. This has manifested itself in many ways: the Kerling attacks, the Memali incident, attacks on an armory, vigorous moral policing, detention of apostates, prosecution of deviants, ex-communication of thousands who do not observe the approved version of the faith, and constant branding by religious zealots of others as murtads (apostates) and kafirs (infidels). The debate about whether the country is a secular or Islamic state has raised political temperatures.
Human Rights
On the human rights front, a civil society is slowly but surely emerging. A Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has been established and though its reports are habitually ignored by Parliament, it is helping to create positive dialogue on human rights issues.
Gender equality has received a boost because of an amendment to Article 8 of the Constitution. Many crippling legislative controls on the media are now losing their sting because of the triumphs of technology in areas like the Internet. But other laws conferring nearly unfettered discretion on the executive to restrict personal liberty, freedom of speech and right to assembly and association remain in place.
The constitutional amendment process has been used to augment governmental powers. Fifty-four Amendment Acts covering nearly 700 alterations to the basic charter have been accomplished. The most controversial amendments have related to the curtailment of procedural rights of preventive detainees and arrestees; withdrawal of the principle of jus soli in citizenship cases; and the application of sedition law to parliamentary proceedings.
The autonomy of the Election Commission in the matter of constituency delineation has been compromised. The statutory guideline on determining weightage in favour of rural districts has been removed. Reid had recommended a maximum variation of up to 15% of the electors.
Royalty’s Position
Parliamentary controls over emergency powers have been removed. Extension of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s power to promulgate Emergency Ordinances whenever the two Houses are not in session concurrently means that, during an emergency the country operates more like a diarchy than a country with separation of powers.
The two Houses of Parliament rarely sit concurrently. If there is an emergency in operation, even if one House is in session, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can seize the legislative initiative.
The royal houses suffered serious setbacks in the 80s and 90s. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers can now be bypassed in the legislative process. Royal immunities were withdrawn in 1993. The initial amendment of January 1993 was vetoed by the Conference of Rulers and a watered down draft of March 1993 barely obtained the approval of the Conference.
Since the early eighties, Islamisation has proceeded at a fairly vigorous pace. There has been an upsurge in opposition politics. Regional sentiment has increased in several states. The ruling party, Umno, suffered serious internecine disputes twice in the last two decades.
In the eighties, the Lord President and five other Supreme Court judges were suspended. The Lord President and two judges were dismissed. In the decade that followed, the judiciary suffered a terrible loss of reputation. A terrible judicial winter descended on the nation. The ice is only now beginning to thaw.
The federal state division of power is also facing pressures for change in such areas as water management.
Islamisation
Due to the growing sentiment towards an Islamic state, state assemblies are enacting more and more legislation on Islamic matters. Some of the state laws trespass both on federal jurisdiction and on the rights of citizens under Part II of the Constitution.
Syariah courts were till June 10, 1988 regarded as subordinate to the High Court. But by Act A704 it was provided that the High Courts and the inferior courts referred to in Article 121(1) “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts”.
This watershed amendment catapulted the Islamic religious courts to almost equal constitutional status with the civil courts.
Sadly, the amendment did not clarify a number of things. First, who has the power to determine whether a matter is within or outside the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts? Second, where should a case go if one party is a Muslim and the other a non-Muslim? Third, what should happen if an issue is mixed and involves elements of both syariah and civil law?
Fourth, what if a syariah-related law or decision involves a grave constitutional law question about fundamental rights or federal-state division of power? Fifth, what if the remedy being prayed for is unavailable in the syariah courts?
Since 1988, the civil courts have generally shown great reluctance and restraint in any matter where there is the slightest whiff of an Islamic religious issue. Barring some exceptions, e.g. Federal judge Datuk Abdul Hamid’s recent decision in the case of Latifah Mat Zin, civil judges have generally hidden behind Article 121(1A) to give way to the syariah courts and to adroitly evade or avoid constitutional issues.
In any system with legal pluralism, overlaps are bound to occur and jurisdictional conflicts are unavoidable. The conflicts can be resolved either through judicial interpretation or through legislative guidance. The judiciary has singularly failed in this area. A legislative initiative is, therefore, necessary to clarify issues arising under Article 121(1A).
All in all, however, it can be said that the Constitution has survived these momentous events. By far and large, constitutional processes guided these crises. But it is also arguable that many parts of the Constitution have largely remained at the outskirts of society. Many of its gilt-ended provisions have not yet become the chart and compass, the sail and anchor of the nation’s endeavours.
In the decades ahead, the Constitution will have to accommodate the incoming tides of globalisation and Islamisation.
There is every reason to believe that the spirit of tolerance, moderation and compromise that animated the drafting of the basic charter in 1957 will be summoned again and will prevail.
Source: Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, TheSun, Tuesday, August 21 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
HOME
Thursday, 16 August 2007
Splits in Umno and Opposition Unity
Splits in Umno and Opposition Unity
Historically, successful coalition building among political parties in Malaysia has depended very much on the splits within the dominant ruling party, Umno.
The first split in Umno which resulted in Datuk Onn Jaafar's exit and the formation of the multiethnic Independent of Malaya Party (IMP) in the early 1950s led directly to the Umno-MCA coalition.
The Labour Party and Parti Rakyat formed the first multiethnic opposition coalition, the Socialist Front (SF), before the 1959 elections but its support came largely from non-Malays.
The sacking of an Umno minister, Aziz Ishak, in 1962 gave the SF a third member, the National Convention Party (NCP) in the 1964 elections. It, however, was the weakest link and failed to shake Umno's ground.
The next multiethnic coalition, the Malaysian Solidarity Convention initiated by Singapore's PAP, had no Malay component and died in its infancy with the 1965 expulsion of Singapore.
The post-1969 challenge to first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman led to the brief expulsion of (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad from Umno and (now Tun) Musa Hitam from government.
In 1977, Harun Idris, the populist Selangor mentri besar was expelled from the party before he was charged and convicted for corruption. He rejected Tun Hussein Onn's offer for a dignified exit as an ambassador.
As Umno experienced rejuvenation after 1969, neither of these led to a schism or formation of new opposition parties.
Mahathir-Razaleigh Showdown
The 1987 showdown between Mahathir-Ghafar (Baba)'s Team A and (Tengku) Razaleigh (Hamzah)-Musa Hitam's Team B was the first schism which saw competition for all positions within Umno, from president to supreme council members.
The factionalism was less driven by policy difference (like "Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola" in political scientist Shamsul A.B.'s words), but more by competition for business opportunities and state largesse, which became tougher because of the 1985-86 economic recession.
The formation and alignment of factions within Umno was fluid.
In 1981, with Mahathir's tacit support, Musa, who was then education minister, beat Tengku Razaleigh, then the finance minister, to become Umno deputy president.
Razaleigh, who kept his cabinet post, mounted another unsuccessful challenge against Musa in 1984.
Musa then wanted Mahathir to remove Razaleigh from the cabinet but Mahathir only transferred Razaleigh to the lesser portfolio of trade and industry.
Musa read this and Mahathir's grooming of Anwar Ibrahim beginning in 1982, as the president's deliberate tactic to check his power and later, he resigned from government in February 1986. To defend his Umno deputy presidency, Musa soon teamed up with his erstwhile archrival Razaleigh who took on Mahathir.
The "battle royal" or "war of the giants" ended in wafer-thin victories for Mahathir (761 to 718) and Ghafar Baba (739 to 699). Many believed Datuk Seri Najib Razak's swing to Team A at the eleventh hour overturned the results. Mahathir purged all Team B frontbenchers in the immediate cabinet reshuffle that followed.
The winners-take-all move tore the party further apart and many expected a renewed challenge from Razaleigh and Musa in the following party election scheduled for 1990.
Umno Baru and S46
However, the High Court, based on a literal interpretation of the Societies Act, ruled in June 1987 that Umno was an illegal body due to election irregularities in a branch.
Mahathir, who had the power as Home Minister to exempt any party from the Act, chose to respect judicial independence.
A competition to form a successor party to Umno and to inherit its tangible and intangible assets began. On technical grounds, the Home Ministry rejected Team B's application for Umno Malaysia and approved Team A's for Umno Baru. Being the game's referee, Mahathir won the first round.
Team B's hope that the High Court decision might be overturned in the Supreme Court was crushed in May and June the following year when the Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas, and two other Supreme Court judges were impeached on charges of misconduct.
Just three days after Salleh's impeachment was executed, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment. Mahathir won the second round.
Mahathir's opponents would have to fight him and Umno Baru in the ultimate arena, the general elections. Musa's faction chose to join Mahathir's new party while Razaleigh's faction formed a new party of their own, Semangat 46 (Spirit of 46 or S46), named after the year Umno was founded.
Outside Umno, meanwhile, discontentment was growing over the incidence of corruption, power abuse and violations of democracy and human rights. To eliminate these challenges from outside the party in the midst of the power struggle
within Umno, Mahathir used the Internal Security Act (ISA) to detain more than 100 social and political leaders in the notorious Operasi Lalang in October, 1987.
The emergence of S46 under Tengku Razaleigh provided just what was needed to bring together the Opposition and civil society Ð a centrist Malay party which could be the core of a new government with a credible new prime minister.
The "two-coalition politics", mooted by civil rights and Chinese education activists as the remedy for Umno's predominance since the mid-1980s, seemed to have come of age.
While the DAP and PAS still could not sit as partners in a single coalition, they and other opposition parties formed two coalitions Ð the Muslim-based Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah (Apu) and the multireligious Gagasan Rakyat (Gagasan) Ð with S46 as the common member.
The 1990 Elections
The message for the 1990 general election was clear: Malaysians could now have an alternative government if they so chose. Driven by opposition against the New Economic Policy (NEP), mono-culturalism and authoritarianism, and encouraged by 27 civil society leaders joining the DAP, the Chinese electorate rallied behind the Gagasan.
The alternative was so credible that Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) jumped ship after nomination day, hoping for better deals for Sabah under Razaleigh.
The Barisan Nasional (BN) lost a state government and effectively 14 out of 20 parliamentary seats overnight. According to a former S46 leader, Mahathir's wrath over this "stab in the back" deterred two more BN parties, based in Sarawak and Penang respectively, from following PBS's footsteps.
Having full control of the media, Mahathir shrewdly turned his crisis into opportunity. A photo of Razaleigh wearing a Kadazan native headgear with a cross-like design was splashed over the front pages of Malay dailies and television screens. The popular Kelantanese prince was accused of selling the Muslims to the Christian-dominated PBS.
This ethno-religious fear was too strong for Malays outside Kelantan to stomach.
S46 was completely wiped out in the west coast while the DAP failed to win more seats in the 1990 elections. Had the Opposition won enough Malay support to grab three more state seats, DAP would have ruled Penang. Eventually, PAS emerged as the greatest beneficiary with a state government in Kelantan.
Interestingly, from 1989 to 1991, the winds of change swept away some 36 one-party states worldwide, including the mighty Soviet Union.
In Malaysia, thanks to the first-past-the-post electoral system, even the unprecedented 47% support for the Opposition in 1990 translated into only 29% of parliamentary seats. Federal power was completely beyond reach.
Nothing could hold the new bedfellows in the opposition camp together for long. Unlike the fortunate Umno and MCA in 1952, they did not even have a municipal council to win.
Soon, PAS stepped up its plan for hudud (syariah-based criminal laws), S46 repositioned itself as a Malay champion, DAP worried about its Chinese support, and PBS regretted its defection from the BN.
Malay to Malaysian Nationalism
The hard-won victory in 1990 for the BN however brought renewal and positive changes to the ruling coalition.
In 1991, Mahathir signified his shift from Malay nationalism to a Malaysian nationalism with the launch of Vision 2020. This was soon followed by cultural and economic liberalisation policies.
Against the backdrop of the 1990s' booming economy, these won he heart of many Malaysians, especially non-Malays.
Meanwhile, the rising Anwar and his cohorts also presented a new face of Umno which was more confident and global. All these developments resulted in slogans and terms like "Malaysia Boleh!" ("Malaysia Can!"), "Wawasan 2020" ("Vision 2020") and "Melayu Baru" ("New Malay") which flooded Malaysian consciousness.
With euphoria, the BN won handsomely with a record 65% of popular votes and 84% of parliamentary seats in 1995, the best since independence. In a
Parliament enlarged by 12 seats, S46's seats shrank from nine to six, DAP's from 20 to nine, and PBS's from 14 to 8, while PAS's remained at seven.
While the Gagasan had collapsed before the 1995 elections, the Apu coalition met its end in 1996 when S46 disbanded itself to join Umno.
Emerging 25 years later after PAP's failed initiative, this attempt at a second multiethnic coalition to challenge the Umno-led one, met its end after struggling for six years.
The Asian Financial Crisis
The 1997 East Asian financial crisis ended the "good days" both in politics and the economy. Malaysians became more critical of how the country was run and less tolerant of corruption and cronyism.
While Mahathir blamed the crisis on a Western conspiracy spearheaded by George Soros and the International Monetary Fund to recolonise Asians, his finance minister Anwar advocated reform.
Soon, a power struggle emerged between the two, which surfaced after national day in 1998. Mahathir announced currency controls on Sept 1 and sacked Anwar the following day.
But Anwar refused to go quietly. And before long, Malaysians soon learnt from the mass media about the skeletons in Anwar's closet. At the same time, however, Malaysians also learnt of many more damaging allegations about the state from the Internet, alternative publications and political rallies.
On one hand, Anwar's purge and trial, symbolised by his blackened eye and the semen-stained mattress in court, transformed Malaysian politics like nothing before. The legitimacy of institutions like the court, the police and the media plummeted.
While fewer senior supporters of Anwar abandoned Umno after 1998 compared to Razaleigh's followers after 1988, many middle-class and grassroots Malays took to the streets to demand justice for Anwar, and Mahathir's reputation as a respected leader suffered significantly.
This unprecedented Malay rebellion on the ground brought all the major opposition parties - PAS, DAP, Parti Rakyat Malaysia and the newborn Keadilan - into a single coalition dubbed the Barisan Alternatif (BA) which eventually won 42 parliamentary seats and two state governments in 1999.
On the other hand, however, the reformasi failed to change electoral and party politics. Firstly, the united opposition actually won only 43% of votes and 23% of seats in 1999. They were further away from federal power compared to 1990 when the opposition won 47% of votes and 29% of seats.
Secondly, the coalition effectively disintegrated in 2001 when the DAP left the BA, not unlike in the aftermath of 1990.
And thirdly, the divided opposition parties won only 36% of votes and 9% of seats in the following elections in 2004, no better than the 35% of votes and 16% of seats they won in 1995.
Malaysian politics had just come full circle.
Anwar is now free and demanding for the removal of the preferential policy for bumiputras, an agenda bolder than Razeleigh's "Save Malaysia" campaign or even Onn's proposal to open Umno up to non-Malays.
But many, especially non-Malays, doubt Anwar's commitment. They worry that he might be another Razaleigh who will eventually return to Umno.
They, however, may not have any other choice if they want a united opposition front or a different government in the long run.
Because of Umno's dominance, any realistic alternative to Umno-led governments would need ex-Umno politicians. Should Anwar tumble in the polls like Razaleigh or Onn, the next opposition coalition may need to wait another generation.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, TheSun, Thursday, August 16, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Historically, successful coalition building among political parties in Malaysia has depended very much on the splits within the dominant ruling party, Umno.
The first split in Umno which resulted in Datuk Onn Jaafar's exit and the formation of the multiethnic Independent of Malaya Party (IMP) in the early 1950s led directly to the Umno-MCA coalition.
The Labour Party and Parti Rakyat formed the first multiethnic opposition coalition, the Socialist Front (SF), before the 1959 elections but its support came largely from non-Malays.
The sacking of an Umno minister, Aziz Ishak, in 1962 gave the SF a third member, the National Convention Party (NCP) in the 1964 elections. It, however, was the weakest link and failed to shake Umno's ground.
The next multiethnic coalition, the Malaysian Solidarity Convention initiated by Singapore's PAP, had no Malay component and died in its infancy with the 1965 expulsion of Singapore.
The post-1969 challenge to first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman led to the brief expulsion of (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad from Umno and (now Tun) Musa Hitam from government.
In 1977, Harun Idris, the populist Selangor mentri besar was expelled from the party before he was charged and convicted for corruption. He rejected Tun Hussein Onn's offer for a dignified exit as an ambassador.
As Umno experienced rejuvenation after 1969, neither of these led to a schism or formation of new opposition parties.
Mahathir-Razaleigh Showdown
The 1987 showdown between Mahathir-Ghafar (Baba)'s Team A and (Tengku) Razaleigh (Hamzah)-Musa Hitam's Team B was the first schism which saw competition for all positions within Umno, from president to supreme council members.
The factionalism was less driven by policy difference (like "Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola" in political scientist Shamsul A.B.'s words), but more by competition for business opportunities and state largesse, which became tougher because of the 1985-86 economic recession.
The formation and alignment of factions within Umno was fluid.
In 1981, with Mahathir's tacit support, Musa, who was then education minister, beat Tengku Razaleigh, then the finance minister, to become Umno deputy president.
Razaleigh, who kept his cabinet post, mounted another unsuccessful challenge against Musa in 1984.
Musa then wanted Mahathir to remove Razaleigh from the cabinet but Mahathir only transferred Razaleigh to the lesser portfolio of trade and industry.
Musa read this and Mahathir's grooming of Anwar Ibrahim beginning in 1982, as the president's deliberate tactic to check his power and later, he resigned from government in February 1986. To defend his Umno deputy presidency, Musa soon teamed up with his erstwhile archrival Razaleigh who took on Mahathir.
The "battle royal" or "war of the giants" ended in wafer-thin victories for Mahathir (761 to 718) and Ghafar Baba (739 to 699). Many believed Datuk Seri Najib Razak's swing to Team A at the eleventh hour overturned the results. Mahathir purged all Team B frontbenchers in the immediate cabinet reshuffle that followed.
The winners-take-all move tore the party further apart and many expected a renewed challenge from Razaleigh and Musa in the following party election scheduled for 1990.
Umno Baru and S46
However, the High Court, based on a literal interpretation of the Societies Act, ruled in June 1987 that Umno was an illegal body due to election irregularities in a branch.
Mahathir, who had the power as Home Minister to exempt any party from the Act, chose to respect judicial independence.
A competition to form a successor party to Umno and to inherit its tangible and intangible assets began. On technical grounds, the Home Ministry rejected Team B's application for Umno Malaysia and approved Team A's for Umno Baru. Being the game's referee, Mahathir won the first round.
Team B's hope that the High Court decision might be overturned in the Supreme Court was crushed in May and June the following year when the Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas, and two other Supreme Court judges were impeached on charges of misconduct.
Just three days after Salleh's impeachment was executed, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment. Mahathir won the second round.
Mahathir's opponents would have to fight him and Umno Baru in the ultimate arena, the general elections. Musa's faction chose to join Mahathir's new party while Razaleigh's faction formed a new party of their own, Semangat 46 (Spirit of 46 or S46), named after the year Umno was founded.
Outside Umno, meanwhile, discontentment was growing over the incidence of corruption, power abuse and violations of democracy and human rights. To eliminate these challenges from outside the party in the midst of the power struggle
within Umno, Mahathir used the Internal Security Act (ISA) to detain more than 100 social and political leaders in the notorious Operasi Lalang in October, 1987.
The emergence of S46 under Tengku Razaleigh provided just what was needed to bring together the Opposition and civil society Ð a centrist Malay party which could be the core of a new government with a credible new prime minister.
The "two-coalition politics", mooted by civil rights and Chinese education activists as the remedy for Umno's predominance since the mid-1980s, seemed to have come of age.
While the DAP and PAS still could not sit as partners in a single coalition, they and other opposition parties formed two coalitions Ð the Muslim-based Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah (Apu) and the multireligious Gagasan Rakyat (Gagasan) Ð with S46 as the common member.
The 1990 Elections
The message for the 1990 general election was clear: Malaysians could now have an alternative government if they so chose. Driven by opposition against the New Economic Policy (NEP), mono-culturalism and authoritarianism, and encouraged by 27 civil society leaders joining the DAP, the Chinese electorate rallied behind the Gagasan.
The alternative was so credible that Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) jumped ship after nomination day, hoping for better deals for Sabah under Razaleigh.
The Barisan Nasional (BN) lost a state government and effectively 14 out of 20 parliamentary seats overnight. According to a former S46 leader, Mahathir's wrath over this "stab in the back" deterred two more BN parties, based in Sarawak and Penang respectively, from following PBS's footsteps.
Having full control of the media, Mahathir shrewdly turned his crisis into opportunity. A photo of Razaleigh wearing a Kadazan native headgear with a cross-like design was splashed over the front pages of Malay dailies and television screens. The popular Kelantanese prince was accused of selling the Muslims to the Christian-dominated PBS.
This ethno-religious fear was too strong for Malays outside Kelantan to stomach.
S46 was completely wiped out in the west coast while the DAP failed to win more seats in the 1990 elections. Had the Opposition won enough Malay support to grab three more state seats, DAP would have ruled Penang. Eventually, PAS emerged as the greatest beneficiary with a state government in Kelantan.
Interestingly, from 1989 to 1991, the winds of change swept away some 36 one-party states worldwide, including the mighty Soviet Union.
In Malaysia, thanks to the first-past-the-post electoral system, even the unprecedented 47% support for the Opposition in 1990 translated into only 29% of parliamentary seats. Federal power was completely beyond reach.
Nothing could hold the new bedfellows in the opposition camp together for long. Unlike the fortunate Umno and MCA in 1952, they did not even have a municipal council to win.
Soon, PAS stepped up its plan for hudud (syariah-based criminal laws), S46 repositioned itself as a Malay champion, DAP worried about its Chinese support, and PBS regretted its defection from the BN.
Malay to Malaysian Nationalism
The hard-won victory in 1990 for the BN however brought renewal and positive changes to the ruling coalition.
In 1991, Mahathir signified his shift from Malay nationalism to a Malaysian nationalism with the launch of Vision 2020. This was soon followed by cultural and economic liberalisation policies.
Against the backdrop of the 1990s' booming economy, these won he heart of many Malaysians, especially non-Malays.
Meanwhile, the rising Anwar and his cohorts also presented a new face of Umno which was more confident and global. All these developments resulted in slogans and terms like "Malaysia Boleh!" ("Malaysia Can!"), "Wawasan 2020" ("Vision 2020") and "Melayu Baru" ("New Malay") which flooded Malaysian consciousness.
With euphoria, the BN won handsomely with a record 65% of popular votes and 84% of parliamentary seats in 1995, the best since independence. In a
Parliament enlarged by 12 seats, S46's seats shrank from nine to six, DAP's from 20 to nine, and PBS's from 14 to 8, while PAS's remained at seven.
While the Gagasan had collapsed before the 1995 elections, the Apu coalition met its end in 1996 when S46 disbanded itself to join Umno.
Emerging 25 years later after PAP's failed initiative, this attempt at a second multiethnic coalition to challenge the Umno-led one, met its end after struggling for six years.
The Asian Financial Crisis
The 1997 East Asian financial crisis ended the "good days" both in politics and the economy. Malaysians became more critical of how the country was run and less tolerant of corruption and cronyism.
While Mahathir blamed the crisis on a Western conspiracy spearheaded by George Soros and the International Monetary Fund to recolonise Asians, his finance minister Anwar advocated reform.
Soon, a power struggle emerged between the two, which surfaced after national day in 1998. Mahathir announced currency controls on Sept 1 and sacked Anwar the following day.
But Anwar refused to go quietly. And before long, Malaysians soon learnt from the mass media about the skeletons in Anwar's closet. At the same time, however, Malaysians also learnt of many more damaging allegations about the state from the Internet, alternative publications and political rallies.
On one hand, Anwar's purge and trial, symbolised by his blackened eye and the semen-stained mattress in court, transformed Malaysian politics like nothing before. The legitimacy of institutions like the court, the police and the media plummeted.
While fewer senior supporters of Anwar abandoned Umno after 1998 compared to Razaleigh's followers after 1988, many middle-class and grassroots Malays took to the streets to demand justice for Anwar, and Mahathir's reputation as a respected leader suffered significantly.
This unprecedented Malay rebellion on the ground brought all the major opposition parties - PAS, DAP, Parti Rakyat Malaysia and the newborn Keadilan - into a single coalition dubbed the Barisan Alternatif (BA) which eventually won 42 parliamentary seats and two state governments in 1999.
On the other hand, however, the reformasi failed to change electoral and party politics. Firstly, the united opposition actually won only 43% of votes and 23% of seats in 1999. They were further away from federal power compared to 1990 when the opposition won 47% of votes and 29% of seats.
Secondly, the coalition effectively disintegrated in 2001 when the DAP left the BA, not unlike in the aftermath of 1990.
And thirdly, the divided opposition parties won only 36% of votes and 9% of seats in the following elections in 2004, no better than the 35% of votes and 16% of seats they won in 1995.
Malaysian politics had just come full circle.
Anwar is now free and demanding for the removal of the preferential policy for bumiputras, an agenda bolder than Razeleigh's "Save Malaysia" campaign or even Onn's proposal to open Umno up to non-Malays.
But many, especially non-Malays, doubt Anwar's commitment. They worry that he might be another Razaleigh who will eventually return to Umno.
They, however, may not have any other choice if they want a united opposition front or a different government in the long run.
Because of Umno's dominance, any realistic alternative to Umno-led governments would need ex-Umno politicians. Should Anwar tumble in the polls like Razaleigh or Onn, the next opposition coalition may need to wait another generation.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, TheSun, Thursday, August 16, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Tunku and the two Tun Tans
Tunku and the two Tun Tans
A common vision and shared ideals - these were the two factors that prompted Tunku Abdul Rahman to work closely first, with Tun Tan Cheng Lock and later with his son, Tun Tan Siew Sin.
All three men were determined to win independence from Britain without bloodshed and to create a political and legal framework for this country that would enable Malays, Chinese and Indians to share power and live in harmony. And all three believed in the concept of a multi-racial Malaysia.
Tunku and the two Tun Tans, however, were more than political allies - they were also good friends. Indeed, whenever Tunku visited Malacca, he would stay with Tun Tan Cheng Lock at the family ancestral home in the then Heeren Street, now renamed Jalan Tun Tan Cheng Lock.
One indicator of the Tunku's high esteem for Cheng Lock was the fact that the latter was awarded the title of "Tun" in 1958, one of the earliest Malaysian Chinese to be so honoured.
Yet another indicator was Tunku's decision to accord Cheng Lock a state funeral when the MCA founder passed away on Dec 13, 1960, the first time this signal honour was given to a member of the public. This honour was all the more remarkable because at that time, Cheng Lock was no longer MCA president nor did he ever hold any government post.
When Cheng Lock passed away, the Tunku penned a tribute that was published in the Straits Times. He described Cheng Lock as one of Malaya's illustrious sons, a pillar of strength to the Alliance Party and one of the fathers of this country's independence.
"Without (Cheng Lock's) patriotic support in those early days, I might say here that my mission for independence could not have been achieved except probably at the cost of trouble and bloodshed," the Tunku wrote.
Given his strong friendship with Cheng Lock, the relationship between the Tunku and Siew Sin was equally close. What is perhaps unique is the fact that both men could be - and often were - exceptionally frank in expressing their sometimes differing views. Yet their differences of opinion never caused offence or dented the high regard each had for the other.
A joy to work with
"It was a real joy to work with Siew Sin. He was a very careful finance minister, sometimes a little bit too careful and I had differences with him over matters of expenditure. I said his tight-fisted policy was not helping the country to get richer," the Tunku wrote in a personal tribute when Siew Sin passed away.
"One day, he asked me for leave to go to Europe and I readily agreed. Then before he left, he came to have a last discussion with me and asked who would take his place as finance minister. I told him not to worry about that. I would take it over from him. He turned around and said:
'You finance minister? Then I won't go on leave.'
"That is the type of man (Siew Sin) was, straight and frank and honest and sincere. I appointed Tun (Abdul) Razak (Hussein) as finance minister and so he went off," the Tunku added.
This incident underscores one point - the Tunku never regarded Siew Sin's refusal to hand over responsibility for the Treasury as an act of insubordination or worse, of disloyalty. Above all, it illustrates the absolute trust the Tunku had in Siew Sin's judgment, even though it reflected adversely on the prime minister. This helped to enhance Siew Sin's effectiveness as finance minister and contributed significantly to his record breaking 15-year tenure in the post.
Because of the Tunku's unwavering support, Siew Sin was able to make financial decisions that were economically necessary although politically unpopular, and to disagree with the Tunku as well as with his Umno colleagues without worrying about being undermined by jealous political rivals.
Describing Siew Sin as a typical Malaysian who "lives and thinks Malaysian", in his address to the MCA's general assembly, the Tunku recounted an incident when some Chinese rice millers complained about Siew Sin's refusal to entertain their request.
"I remember one occasion when some Chinese rice millers met him in Kuala Lumpur and made certain demands for the increase of the price of rice and to be given certain laxity in dealing with their merchandise.
"Siew Sin told them off and asked them to return home. They immediately came to see me and complained that Siew Sin is not a Chinese, to which my reply was, he is a Malaysian and they must follow his example."
An 'impossible' fellow
Tunku never forgot his finance minister's refusal to hand over responsibility for the Treasury to him, even though he was the prime minister, and often recounted this incident when introducing Siew Sin to visiting dignitaries.
When Eisaku Sato, the then Prime Minister of Japan visited Malaysia in September, 1967, Tunku described Siew Sin "as an impossible fellow, he won't do what I tell him", and then proceeded to relate this incident to the Japanese premier.
"Why don't you sack him?" the Japanese premier asked.
"Oh no, I can't do that. If I did, the country would go bankrupt," Tunku replied. According to Siew Sin, this encounter left Tunku in good humour, and the Sato considerably confused.
Having known Cheng Lock, the Tunku often adopted an avuncular attitude towards Siew Sin. On one occasion, concerned about Siew Sin's health and his sedentary lifestyle, the Tunku tried to persuade his finance minister to take up golf.
Having played rugby, football and hockey, Siew Sin regarded golf with considerable disdain. How difficult was it to hit a golf ball into a hole a few hundred yards away, he asked.
Realising persuasion wouldn't work, the Tunku decided to capitalise on Siew Sin's well-known dislike for waste. The prime minister ordered a set of made-to-measure golf clubs for Siew Sin. Presented with this expensive gift, Siew Sin had no choice but to sign up for golf lessons.
His first golf lesson was at the Royal Selangor Golf Club with the Tunku as an interested spectator. A diplomat, aware of this epochal event, asked the Tunku about the finance minister's first attempt at golf.
"Did the ball go?" the diplomat asked.
"Yes, the ball went and so did the minister," Tunku said. With considerable relish, he proceeded to describe Siew Sin's flying leap after his club hit the ball.
Reinforcing the close relationship between the two men was the strong sense of political solidarity both men displayed towards each other. One incident illustrates the Tunku's unwavering support for the MCA as Umno's partner in the then ruling coalition, the Alliance.
During the 1964 general election campaign, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew tried very hard to persuade the Tunku to drop the MCA and admit the Singapore-based People's Action Party, or PAP, into the Alliance.
Flatly refusing to consider the PAP as a potential partner, the Tunku declared the three Alliance partners - Umno, MCA and MIC - would swim or sink together.
"Even if there are only five MCA members left or five MIC, we will always stand together united in common purpose," the Tunku told an election rally on March 28, 1964.
If one week is a long time in politics, the friendship and political relationship between Tunku and two generations of politicians - first, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and later, Tun Tan Siew Sin may well be an unmatched record in longevity in this country.
Source: Tan Siok Choo, The Sun, Wednesday, August 1, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
A common vision and shared ideals - these were the two factors that prompted Tunku Abdul Rahman to work closely first, with Tun Tan Cheng Lock and later with his son, Tun Tan Siew Sin.
All three men were determined to win independence from Britain without bloodshed and to create a political and legal framework for this country that would enable Malays, Chinese and Indians to share power and live in harmony. And all three believed in the concept of a multi-racial Malaysia.
Tunku and the two Tun Tans, however, were more than political allies - they were also good friends. Indeed, whenever Tunku visited Malacca, he would stay with Tun Tan Cheng Lock at the family ancestral home in the then Heeren Street, now renamed Jalan Tun Tan Cheng Lock.
One indicator of the Tunku's high esteem for Cheng Lock was the fact that the latter was awarded the title of "Tun" in 1958, one of the earliest Malaysian Chinese to be so honoured.
Yet another indicator was Tunku's decision to accord Cheng Lock a state funeral when the MCA founder passed away on Dec 13, 1960, the first time this signal honour was given to a member of the public. This honour was all the more remarkable because at that time, Cheng Lock was no longer MCA president nor did he ever hold any government post.
When Cheng Lock passed away, the Tunku penned a tribute that was published in the Straits Times. He described Cheng Lock as one of Malaya's illustrious sons, a pillar of strength to the Alliance Party and one of the fathers of this country's independence.
"Without (Cheng Lock's) patriotic support in those early days, I might say here that my mission for independence could not have been achieved except probably at the cost of trouble and bloodshed," the Tunku wrote.
Given his strong friendship with Cheng Lock, the relationship between the Tunku and Siew Sin was equally close. What is perhaps unique is the fact that both men could be - and often were - exceptionally frank in expressing their sometimes differing views. Yet their differences of opinion never caused offence or dented the high regard each had for the other.
A joy to work with
"It was a real joy to work with Siew Sin. He was a very careful finance minister, sometimes a little bit too careful and I had differences with him over matters of expenditure. I said his tight-fisted policy was not helping the country to get richer," the Tunku wrote in a personal tribute when Siew Sin passed away.
"One day, he asked me for leave to go to Europe and I readily agreed. Then before he left, he came to have a last discussion with me and asked who would take his place as finance minister. I told him not to worry about that. I would take it over from him. He turned around and said:
'You finance minister? Then I won't go on leave.'
"That is the type of man (Siew Sin) was, straight and frank and honest and sincere. I appointed Tun (Abdul) Razak (Hussein) as finance minister and so he went off," the Tunku added.
This incident underscores one point - the Tunku never regarded Siew Sin's refusal to hand over responsibility for the Treasury as an act of insubordination or worse, of disloyalty. Above all, it illustrates the absolute trust the Tunku had in Siew Sin's judgment, even though it reflected adversely on the prime minister. This helped to enhance Siew Sin's effectiveness as finance minister and contributed significantly to his record breaking 15-year tenure in the post.
Because of the Tunku's unwavering support, Siew Sin was able to make financial decisions that were economically necessary although politically unpopular, and to disagree with the Tunku as well as with his Umno colleagues without worrying about being undermined by jealous political rivals.
Describing Siew Sin as a typical Malaysian who "lives and thinks Malaysian", in his address to the MCA's general assembly, the Tunku recounted an incident when some Chinese rice millers complained about Siew Sin's refusal to entertain their request.
"I remember one occasion when some Chinese rice millers met him in Kuala Lumpur and made certain demands for the increase of the price of rice and to be given certain laxity in dealing with their merchandise.
"Siew Sin told them off and asked them to return home. They immediately came to see me and complained that Siew Sin is not a Chinese, to which my reply was, he is a Malaysian and they must follow his example."
An 'impossible' fellow
Tunku never forgot his finance minister's refusal to hand over responsibility for the Treasury to him, even though he was the prime minister, and often recounted this incident when introducing Siew Sin to visiting dignitaries.
When Eisaku Sato, the then Prime Minister of Japan visited Malaysia in September, 1967, Tunku described Siew Sin "as an impossible fellow, he won't do what I tell him", and then proceeded to relate this incident to the Japanese premier.
"Why don't you sack him?" the Japanese premier asked.
"Oh no, I can't do that. If I did, the country would go bankrupt," Tunku replied. According to Siew Sin, this encounter left Tunku in good humour, and the Sato considerably confused.
Having known Cheng Lock, the Tunku often adopted an avuncular attitude towards Siew Sin. On one occasion, concerned about Siew Sin's health and his sedentary lifestyle, the Tunku tried to persuade his finance minister to take up golf.
Having played rugby, football and hockey, Siew Sin regarded golf with considerable disdain. How difficult was it to hit a golf ball into a hole a few hundred yards away, he asked.
Realising persuasion wouldn't work, the Tunku decided to capitalise on Siew Sin's well-known dislike for waste. The prime minister ordered a set of made-to-measure golf clubs for Siew Sin. Presented with this expensive gift, Siew Sin had no choice but to sign up for golf lessons.
His first golf lesson was at the Royal Selangor Golf Club with the Tunku as an interested spectator. A diplomat, aware of this epochal event, asked the Tunku about the finance minister's first attempt at golf.
"Did the ball go?" the diplomat asked.
"Yes, the ball went and so did the minister," Tunku said. With considerable relish, he proceeded to describe Siew Sin's flying leap after his club hit the ball.
Reinforcing the close relationship between the two men was the strong sense of political solidarity both men displayed towards each other. One incident illustrates the Tunku's unwavering support for the MCA as Umno's partner in the then ruling coalition, the Alliance.
During the 1964 general election campaign, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew tried very hard to persuade the Tunku to drop the MCA and admit the Singapore-based People's Action Party, or PAP, into the Alliance.
Flatly refusing to consider the PAP as a potential partner, the Tunku declared the three Alliance partners - Umno, MCA and MIC - would swim or sink together.
"Even if there are only five MCA members left or five MIC, we will always stand together united in common purpose," the Tunku told an election rally on March 28, 1964.
If one week is a long time in politics, the friendship and political relationship between Tunku and two generations of politicians - first, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and later, Tun Tan Siew Sin may well be an unmatched record in longevity in this country.
Source: Tan Siok Choo, The Sun, Wednesday, August 1, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (2003- … )
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (2003-Mac 2009)
IF his predecessor focused on industrialisation and physical development, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration may well be remembered for his efforts in claiming back the nation’s soul.
Malaysia’s leap-frog into technology and industrialisation came at a cost. Burgeoning corruption, abuse of process and a lax public delivery system caused Malaysia’s spiral down the corruption and transparency indices worldwide.
Abdullah, otherwise known as Pak Lah, made cleaning up the system a personal quest.
The last three years since he became prime minister has seen the setting up of the National Integrity Institute, the formulation of the National Integrity Plan, a focus on the civil service, attempts to improve the police’s credibility, and the formulation of Pemudah to improve the public delivery system. Recently, the government announced the highest ever pay rise for the civil service.
The first few months of Abdullah’s administration also saw the arraignment of one minister and several top government officials for corruption. All these efforts, say critics, unfortunately have not achieved the desired results, with Pak Lah’s soft stance and affable personality being blamed for it.
“That’s the thing about the PM,” says an aide. “He is very forgiving and will give you as many chances as possible to change or rectify a wrong, but once his patience runs out, you are finished!”
Abdullah also pushed ahead with a national austerity drive, calling off several major projects, much to his predecessor’s chagrin. He has also resurrected the agriculture sector and embarked on developing southern Johor and the northern corridor as new economic powerhouses for the nation.
The Abdullah administration also seems to have initially given the media a longer leash but one which has been yanked every now and again. The closure of two newspapers in Sarawak and the suspension of a Chinese-language tabloid is evidence of this.
However, it cannot be denied that the media, and Malaysians, through the advent of blogs and Internet discussion portals enjoy wider freedom to criticise and disagree – something almost unheard of under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s tenure.
Abdullah also has the unenviable task of leading the country as well as the Organisation of Islamic Conference in a post 9/11world. But his promotion of a moderate, progressive Islam via Islam Hadhari (civilisational Islam) has gone down well with Muslims and non-Muslims alike and aims to deflect Western presumptions that Muslims are emotional and progressively backward.
However, the liberal Islam he preaches doesn’t seem to have reached the ground in Malaysia. Over the past two to three years, several high-profile cases involving Muslim conversions and the attending Constitutional issues arising out of those conversions, and its impact on people’s lives, indicate an unresolved problem over freedom of religion in Malaysia.
The rejection of the proposed Inter-faith Commission and Abdullah’s ban on any public interfaith dialogue has also resulted in simmering discontent among certain quarters.
A judicial crisis on the Constitutional supremacy of the civil over syariah courts is also brewing following several court decisions that have resulted in the rights of individual’s being compromised.
Abdullah also finds himself in the midst of embarrassing situations, no thanks to overzealous civil servants with extremist tendencies, be they religious officers or local councillors.
In spite of the criticisms against him, most notably the less-than-successful anti-corruption campaign and the lack of improvement in the civil service’s delivery system, Abdullah has the rakyat’s confidence.
This is evident from the overwhelming majority the BN received in his first general election as premier in 2004 when the coalition won back Terengganu from PAS, to the recent Ijok by-election.
Most importantly, he remains the voice of reason for all, just as he pledged: “I am the prime minister of all Malaysians.”
Under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s premiership:
>> The ringgit unpegged after nine years
>> National Integrity Institute set up and National Integrity Plan introduced
>> Pemudah set up to improve public delivery system
>> Iskandar Development Region launched
>> Mega projects, including the Crooked Bridge to Singapore, cancelled
>> Measat 3 satellite launched
>> Ninth Malaysia Plan launched
>> Malaysia creates first biodiesel fuel from palm oil
Source: The Sun, Tuesday, July 31, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
IF his predecessor focused on industrialisation and physical development, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration may well be remembered for his efforts in claiming back the nation’s soul.
Malaysia’s leap-frog into technology and industrialisation came at a cost. Burgeoning corruption, abuse of process and a lax public delivery system caused Malaysia’s spiral down the corruption and transparency indices worldwide.
Abdullah, otherwise known as Pak Lah, made cleaning up the system a personal quest.
The last three years since he became prime minister has seen the setting up of the National Integrity Institute, the formulation of the National Integrity Plan, a focus on the civil service, attempts to improve the police’s credibility, and the formulation of Pemudah to improve the public delivery system. Recently, the government announced the highest ever pay rise for the civil service.
The first few months of Abdullah’s administration also saw the arraignment of one minister and several top government officials for corruption. All these efforts, say critics, unfortunately have not achieved the desired results, with Pak Lah’s soft stance and affable personality being blamed for it.
“That’s the thing about the PM,” says an aide. “He is very forgiving and will give you as many chances as possible to change or rectify a wrong, but once his patience runs out, you are finished!”
Abdullah also pushed ahead with a national austerity drive, calling off several major projects, much to his predecessor’s chagrin. He has also resurrected the agriculture sector and embarked on developing southern Johor and the northern corridor as new economic powerhouses for the nation.
The Abdullah administration also seems to have initially given the media a longer leash but one which has been yanked every now and again. The closure of two newspapers in Sarawak and the suspension of a Chinese-language tabloid is evidence of this.
However, it cannot be denied that the media, and Malaysians, through the advent of blogs and Internet discussion portals enjoy wider freedom to criticise and disagree – something almost unheard of under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s tenure.
Abdullah also has the unenviable task of leading the country as well as the Organisation of Islamic Conference in a post 9/11world. But his promotion of a moderate, progressive Islam via Islam Hadhari (civilisational Islam) has gone down well with Muslims and non-Muslims alike and aims to deflect Western presumptions that Muslims are emotional and progressively backward.
However, the liberal Islam he preaches doesn’t seem to have reached the ground in Malaysia. Over the past two to three years, several high-profile cases involving Muslim conversions and the attending Constitutional issues arising out of those conversions, and its impact on people’s lives, indicate an unresolved problem over freedom of religion in Malaysia.
The rejection of the proposed Inter-faith Commission and Abdullah’s ban on any public interfaith dialogue has also resulted in simmering discontent among certain quarters.
A judicial crisis on the Constitutional supremacy of the civil over syariah courts is also brewing following several court decisions that have resulted in the rights of individual’s being compromised.
Abdullah also finds himself in the midst of embarrassing situations, no thanks to overzealous civil servants with extremist tendencies, be they religious officers or local councillors.
In spite of the criticisms against him, most notably the less-than-successful anti-corruption campaign and the lack of improvement in the civil service’s delivery system, Abdullah has the rakyat’s confidence.
This is evident from the overwhelming majority the BN received in his first general election as premier in 2004 when the coalition won back Terengganu from PAS, to the recent Ijok by-election.
Most importantly, he remains the voice of reason for all, just as he pledged: “I am the prime minister of all Malaysians.”
Under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s premiership:
>> The ringgit unpegged after nine years
>> National Integrity Institute set up and National Integrity Plan introduced
>> Pemudah set up to improve public delivery system
>> Iskandar Development Region launched
>> Mega projects, including the Crooked Bridge to Singapore, cancelled
>> Measat 3 satellite launched
>> Ninth Malaysia Plan launched
>> Malaysia creates first biodiesel fuel from palm oil
Source: The Sun, Tuesday, July 31, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (1981-2003)
Father of Modernisation
“IT is not for me to say whether I have succeeded or not. The people and history will judge and determine whether my service was good or bad.”
Ironically, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s last speech as Umno president at the party’s general assembly in 2003, is the question that many people continue to ask today – was he the nation’s greatest statesman?
But for a man who actually changed time, nothing was impossible for Dr M, and Malaysians owe him a great deal for putting our tiny dot of a nation on the world map.
It was his persistence that helped propel the country to become among the fastest developing nations. He earned the nickname Bapa Wawasan (Father of Vision), an allusion to his vision of making Malaysia a developed nation by 2020.
“Dr M demanded a lot from others but much more of himself. Failure was not an option,” says a former aide.
His dressing down of the Malays for being dependent on “crutches” and not being competitive enough in an era of globalisation was an annual tirade at Umno general assemblies. True, he did things his way, making unpopular decisions without any apologies, but critics eventually agreed his decisions were right.
A case in point was the pegging of the ringgit to the US dollar in the wake of the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis. Mahathir argued that an International Monetary Fund or World Bank loan would push the nation further into debt and delay the country’s recovery period – an opinion his deputy and then finance minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim did not share.
But while other nations are still reeling from the effects of the 1997 crisis, Malaysia, thanks to Mahathir, and by the World Bank’s own admission, has rebounded handsomely with minimal aftershocks.
His focus on industrialising the country and his grand plans may have seemed a little far-fetched, excessive and unachievable to many, but Mahathir dared to dream – and he dreamt big.
The national car Proton, the administrative capital of Putrajaya, the Petronas Twin Towers and the Penang Bridge were among the jaw-dropping projects executed under his tenure.
Cyberspace and even outerspace have become realities for Malaysia, and who would have ever thought that the quiet agricultural enclave of Sepang would one day be home to one of the world’s best airports and a Formula One circuit?
But Mahathir’s administration was criticised for its poor human rights record, with the tightening and implementation of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act and of the Internal Security Act (ISA).
The 1987 Ops Lalang saw the detention without trial of more than 100 political opponents and critics of his administration under the ISA.
The Star, of which first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman was chairman, was suspended following reports that were deemed sympathetic to the detainees. Sin Chew Jit Poh and Watan were also suspended.
While he received the backing of most Malaysians when he clipped the powers of royalty, the assault on the judiciary with the sacking of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 remains one of – if not the darkest – episodes of his administration. However, Mahathir’s supporters and the man himself saw these as necessary evils.
“For a country to progress, drastic measures need to be taken so that these efforts are not derailed,” he once said. The most drastic measure took place in September 1998 when he unceremoniously sacked his heir apparent Anwar on charges of sexual misconduct and corruption.
Both Mahathir and Anwar will probably take the real reason for their fallout to the grave, but Mahathir is known to be a man who does things his way, preferably without differing views – how else can one explain the fact that he survived three deputies?
When Time magazine named him “Asia’s Newsmaker” in 1998, it was not surprising. His role as a critic of the West brought him many admirers from Cuba to China, with Fidel Castro regarding him as a champion of the Third World.
His administration’s icy relations with Singapore and Australia, meanwhile, have only recently begun to thaw under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Today, Mahathir spends his time as head of the Perdana Leadership Foundation think tank, giving talks and campaigning against war. Being one of Abdullah’s most strident critics, Mahathir continues to make life difficult for his successor, as he did for his previous deputy Anwar. However, his post-retirement tirades against the current administration indicate that he seems oblivious of the events he was responsible for during the 22 years he was in power.
Under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s premiership:
>> Time zones between the peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak synchronised
>> Malaysia Inc. launched
>> Bank Islam established
>> First national car project launched – Proton Saga becomes Malaysia’s first car
>> Penang Bridge, Southeast Asia’s longest, built
>> Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Malaysia plans launched
>> Bahasa Baku programme introduced in lower secondary schools but fails
>> Vision 2020 revealed
>> Malaysia Online with project Jaring launched
>> Tenaga Nasional and Telekom Malaysia privatised
>> North South Highway completed
>> Multimedia Super Corridor, with Cyberjaya as its hub, formed
>> Measat 1, Malaysia’s first satellite, launched into space
>> Petronas Twin Towers, the world’s tallest buildings, completed
>> Light Rail Transit changes the face of urban transportation
>> KL International Airport in Sepang opened
>> Formula One races in Malaysia
>> Pegging of RM3.8 to US$1 during the 1997 financial crisis
>> Putrajaya becomes administrative centre
“If you don’t know how to ride a horse, you will fall off. I have fallen off a horse three times. But to get the balance, to be in rhythm with the animal and all that, is something that you can achieve only if you learn. I had to learn about finance.”
Putrajaya, 2003
“History is a great teacher which can help us create a better world. But unfortunately the lessons of history are often ignored, sometimes deliberately. And because we ignore the lessons of history we keep on repeating the mistakes of the past and we suffer accordingly.”
International Association of Historians of Asia, 2000
Source: Terence Fernandez, The Sun, Tuesday, July 31, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
“IT is not for me to say whether I have succeeded or not. The people and history will judge and determine whether my service was good or bad.”
Ironically, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s last speech as Umno president at the party’s general assembly in 2003, is the question that many people continue to ask today – was he the nation’s greatest statesman?
But for a man who actually changed time, nothing was impossible for Dr M, and Malaysians owe him a great deal for putting our tiny dot of a nation on the world map.
It was his persistence that helped propel the country to become among the fastest developing nations. He earned the nickname Bapa Wawasan (Father of Vision), an allusion to his vision of making Malaysia a developed nation by 2020.
“Dr M demanded a lot from others but much more of himself. Failure was not an option,” says a former aide.
His dressing down of the Malays for being dependent on “crutches” and not being competitive enough in an era of globalisation was an annual tirade at Umno general assemblies. True, he did things his way, making unpopular decisions without any apologies, but critics eventually agreed his decisions were right.
A case in point was the pegging of the ringgit to the US dollar in the wake of the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis. Mahathir argued that an International Monetary Fund or World Bank loan would push the nation further into debt and delay the country’s recovery period – an opinion his deputy and then finance minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim did not share.
But while other nations are still reeling from the effects of the 1997 crisis, Malaysia, thanks to Mahathir, and by the World Bank’s own admission, has rebounded handsomely with minimal aftershocks.
His focus on industrialising the country and his grand plans may have seemed a little far-fetched, excessive and unachievable to many, but Mahathir dared to dream – and he dreamt big.
The national car Proton, the administrative capital of Putrajaya, the Petronas Twin Towers and the Penang Bridge were among the jaw-dropping projects executed under his tenure.
Cyberspace and even outerspace have become realities for Malaysia, and who would have ever thought that the quiet agricultural enclave of Sepang would one day be home to one of the world’s best airports and a Formula One circuit?
But Mahathir’s administration was criticised for its poor human rights record, with the tightening and implementation of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act and of the Internal Security Act (ISA).
The 1987 Ops Lalang saw the detention without trial of more than 100 political opponents and critics of his administration under the ISA.
The Star, of which first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman was chairman, was suspended following reports that were deemed sympathetic to the detainees. Sin Chew Jit Poh and Watan were also suspended.
While he received the backing of most Malaysians when he clipped the powers of royalty, the assault on the judiciary with the sacking of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 remains one of – if not the darkest – episodes of his administration. However, Mahathir’s supporters and the man himself saw these as necessary evils.
“For a country to progress, drastic measures need to be taken so that these efforts are not derailed,” he once said. The most drastic measure took place in September 1998 when he unceremoniously sacked his heir apparent Anwar on charges of sexual misconduct and corruption.
Both Mahathir and Anwar will probably take the real reason for their fallout to the grave, but Mahathir is known to be a man who does things his way, preferably without differing views – how else can one explain the fact that he survived three deputies?
When Time magazine named him “Asia’s Newsmaker” in 1998, it was not surprising. His role as a critic of the West brought him many admirers from Cuba to China, with Fidel Castro regarding him as a champion of the Third World.
His administration’s icy relations with Singapore and Australia, meanwhile, have only recently begun to thaw under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Today, Mahathir spends his time as head of the Perdana Leadership Foundation think tank, giving talks and campaigning against war. Being one of Abdullah’s most strident critics, Mahathir continues to make life difficult for his successor, as he did for his previous deputy Anwar. However, his post-retirement tirades against the current administration indicate that he seems oblivious of the events he was responsible for during the 22 years he was in power.
Under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s premiership:
>> Time zones between the peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak synchronised
>> Malaysia Inc. launched
>> Bank Islam established
>> First national car project launched – Proton Saga becomes Malaysia’s first car
>> Penang Bridge, Southeast Asia’s longest, built
>> Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight Malaysia plans launched
>> Bahasa Baku programme introduced in lower secondary schools but fails
>> Vision 2020 revealed
>> Malaysia Online with project Jaring launched
>> Tenaga Nasional and Telekom Malaysia privatised
>> North South Highway completed
>> Multimedia Super Corridor, with Cyberjaya as its hub, formed
>> Measat 1, Malaysia’s first satellite, launched into space
>> Petronas Twin Towers, the world’s tallest buildings, completed
>> Light Rail Transit changes the face of urban transportation
>> KL International Airport in Sepang opened
>> Formula One races in Malaysia
>> Pegging of RM3.8 to US$1 during the 1997 financial crisis
>> Putrajaya becomes administrative centre
“If you don’t know how to ride a horse, you will fall off. I have fallen off a horse three times. But to get the balance, to be in rhythm with the animal and all that, is something that you can achieve only if you learn. I had to learn about finance.”
Putrajaya, 2003
“History is a great teacher which can help us create a better world. But unfortunately the lessons of history are often ignored, sometimes deliberately. And because we ignore the lessons of history we keep on repeating the mistakes of the past and we suffer accordingly.”
International Association of Historians of Asia, 2000
Source: Terence Fernandez, The Sun, Tuesday, July 31, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tun Abdul Razak Hussein (1970-76)
Father of Development
The most significant components that make Malaysia what it is today was introduced during the tenure of the second prime minister.
In spite of a brief tenure, many attributes of Malaysia - social, political and economical - were Tun Abdul Razak Hussein's handiwork, an achievement emulated only by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Given the alias of Bapa Pembangunan (Father of Development), Razak charted the development of the nation physically, politically and socially - the after-effects of which are felt and witnessed to this day.
Townships spruced up during his time, including Petaling Jaya, the country's first satellite town. The country embarked on an "agriculture revolution", which saw it becoming the world's largest producer of rubber.
The Rubber Industry Smallholders' Development Authority (Risda) was established for this purpose, while another natural resource - oil - was exploited to the maximum, with the setting up of Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) - which is today a Forbes-listed entity.
The electronics industry also saw tremendous growth, with Malaysia becoming a main manufacturer of electronic components.
Razak's development policy that has come to be known as the Red Book is the foundation on which the nation was built.
The New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced in 1971, has helped many bumiputras escape a life of poverty - although it is today criticised for creating loopholes that allow the policy's principles and spirit to be hijacked by the rich to become even richer.
The NEP was Razak's way to eradicate racial distrust that came to a boil during the May 13, 1969 racial riots - an incident which accelerated Razak's journey to the top.
The tragic event resulted in the suspension of the Constitution and the birth of the National Consultative Council, which Razak headed.
His political legacy includes the Barisan Nasional, which was founded in 1974 to replace the Alliance. It was also Razak's simple yet demanding conditions for a clean and efficient administration that set the standards for the civil service which even today, the civil service struggles to achieve.
He was a politician and civil servant who understood well the need to be circumspect. Upon discovering that it would cost RM30,000 to build a swimming pool at his official residence, he had to disappoint his children.
"What would people say?" he reasoned.
His eldest son, Datuk Seri Najib, is today deputy prime minister.
As director of operations of the National Operations Council (NOC) that ran the country after the May 13 riots until 1971, and because he abolished local council elections in the 1970s, Razak was often perceived as being authoritarian. But this, writes Datuk P.G. Lim is far from the truth. She was one of two women appointed to the National Consultative Council under the NOC.
"Tun Razak assured members that they had the right to say what they thought. The government would not disregard their views," Lim wrote in an essay published in Tun Abdul Razak, A Personal Portrait.
"He appealed to the people to re-dedicate themselves to certain ideals which would transcend race, religion, culture, class and political affiliations."
Under Tun Abdul Razak's premiership:
>> Barisan Nasional formed to replace the Alliance
>> The New Economic Policy (NEP) launched
>> Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) established
>> Second Malaysia Plan launched
>> Malaysia Airlines System established
>> First Maktab Rendah Sains Mara established in Seremban
>> Urban Development Authority set up
>> Green Book launched to revolutionalise the agriculture sector
>> Risda established
>> Petronas established
>> Bank Pembangunan formed
>> Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia or Sirim formed
>> Local government elections abolished.
Source: The Sun, Monday, July 30, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The most significant components that make Malaysia what it is today was introduced during the tenure of the second prime minister.
In spite of a brief tenure, many attributes of Malaysia - social, political and economical - were Tun Abdul Razak Hussein's handiwork, an achievement emulated only by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Given the alias of Bapa Pembangunan (Father of Development), Razak charted the development of the nation physically, politically and socially - the after-effects of which are felt and witnessed to this day.
Townships spruced up during his time, including Petaling Jaya, the country's first satellite town. The country embarked on an "agriculture revolution", which saw it becoming the world's largest producer of rubber.
The Rubber Industry Smallholders' Development Authority (Risda) was established for this purpose, while another natural resource - oil - was exploited to the maximum, with the setting up of Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas) - which is today a Forbes-listed entity.
The electronics industry also saw tremendous growth, with Malaysia becoming a main manufacturer of electronic components.
Razak's development policy that has come to be known as the Red Book is the foundation on which the nation was built.
The New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced in 1971, has helped many bumiputras escape a life of poverty - although it is today criticised for creating loopholes that allow the policy's principles and spirit to be hijacked by the rich to become even richer.
The NEP was Razak's way to eradicate racial distrust that came to a boil during the May 13, 1969 racial riots - an incident which accelerated Razak's journey to the top.
The tragic event resulted in the suspension of the Constitution and the birth of the National Consultative Council, which Razak headed.
His political legacy includes the Barisan Nasional, which was founded in 1974 to replace the Alliance. It was also Razak's simple yet demanding conditions for a clean and efficient administration that set the standards for the civil service which even today, the civil service struggles to achieve.
He was a politician and civil servant who understood well the need to be circumspect. Upon discovering that it would cost RM30,000 to build a swimming pool at his official residence, he had to disappoint his children.
"What would people say?" he reasoned.
His eldest son, Datuk Seri Najib, is today deputy prime minister.
As director of operations of the National Operations Council (NOC) that ran the country after the May 13 riots until 1971, and because he abolished local council elections in the 1970s, Razak was often perceived as being authoritarian. But this, writes Datuk P.G. Lim is far from the truth. She was one of two women appointed to the National Consultative Council under the NOC.
"Tun Razak assured members that they had the right to say what they thought. The government would not disregard their views," Lim wrote in an essay published in Tun Abdul Razak, A Personal Portrait.
"He appealed to the people to re-dedicate themselves to certain ideals which would transcend race, religion, culture, class and political affiliations."
Under Tun Abdul Razak's premiership:
>> Barisan Nasional formed to replace the Alliance
>> The New Economic Policy (NEP) launched
>> Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) established
>> Second Malaysia Plan launched
>> Malaysia Airlines System established
>> First Maktab Rendah Sains Mara established in Seremban
>> Urban Development Authority set up
>> Green Book launched to revolutionalise the agriculture sector
>> Risda established
>> Petronas established
>> Bank Pembangunan formed
>> Standards and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia or Sirim formed
>> Local government elections abolished.
Source: The Sun, Monday, July 30, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tun Hussein Onn (1976-81)
Father of Unity
Tun Hussein Onn began and ended his premiership in tears - announcing the death of second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein in 1976, and his own resignation for health reasons in 1981 following a power shift in Umno in favour of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Coming from a political dynasty that included his father, Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar, the third prime minister of Malaysia wore the tag of Bapa Perpaduan (Father of Unity).
This label was attributed to many of his policies which were geared towards bridging the racial divide and putting an end to the pigeon-holing of the major ethnic groups into economic classes, a task he inherited from his predecessor.
What remains his most profound legacy is the setting up of the National Unit Trust (Amanah Saham Nasional or ASN) scheme in 1981 where government-owned shares were transferred into bumiputra hands, and controlled by Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB).
The scheme allowed many bumiputras to make a killing at the stock market and PNB became an organ for the government to acquire controlling stakes in companies - both local and foreign.
Although ASN was geared towards benefiting the bumiputras, it would later evolve to include other races under Amanah Saham Wawasan.
Hussein's administration saw strides in positioning Malaysia as an influential voice on the world stage, with the prime minister playing an important role in charting the course for Asean, especially when Malaysia became the grouping's chair under his premiership.
Hussein, who was in the Indian army, strengthened ties with China which were renewed by his predecessor Tun Razak, who was also his brother-in-law. Hussein's son, Hishammuddin, is the current Umno Youth chief and education minister.
His foreign policy paid dividends with a leap in foreign investment. The economy also charted a 40% growth in 1978 - just two years after Hussein took over - undoubtedly due to the strong foundations set by both his predecessors.
Remembered for his meticulous style and for being a stickler for details - as evident from the pen, pencil and ruler he carried with him - cabinet meetings could go on for hours.
But his simplistic nature was also legendary. Former Asean secretary-general Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie best describes this while relating how Hussein and his Thai counterpart Gen. Kriangsak Chomanan resolved an oil dispute in the Gulf of Thailand at a kuey teow stall in Chiangmai.
"Instead of the hotel it was scheduled for, the treaty was signed over bowls of beef noodles - all because Hussein wanted to taste for himself if Kriangsak's endorsement of the beef kuey teow as the best in Thailand was true."
Hussein's words about power, which he continuously drummed into officialdom, continue to resonate for Malaysia till today: "Power is given to us not to lord it over others, not to improve our standing nor to enrich ourselves. Power must be used for the good and well-being of the people at all times. Power must always be used for the benefit of the people."
Under Tun Hussein Onn's premiership:
>> Amanah Saham Nasional created
>> Permodalan Nasional Bhd established
>> Rukun Tetangga launched
>> Koperasi Usaha Bersatu launched
>> Third Malaysia Plan launched
>> Federal Territories Ministry established in 1978
>> Malaysia becomes top semi-conductor exporter
Source: The Sun, Monday, July 30, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tun Hussein Onn began and ended his premiership in tears - announcing the death of second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein in 1976, and his own resignation for health reasons in 1981 following a power shift in Umno in favour of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Coming from a political dynasty that included his father, Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar, the third prime minister of Malaysia wore the tag of Bapa Perpaduan (Father of Unity).
This label was attributed to many of his policies which were geared towards bridging the racial divide and putting an end to the pigeon-holing of the major ethnic groups into economic classes, a task he inherited from his predecessor.
What remains his most profound legacy is the setting up of the National Unit Trust (Amanah Saham Nasional or ASN) scheme in 1981 where government-owned shares were transferred into bumiputra hands, and controlled by Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB).
The scheme allowed many bumiputras to make a killing at the stock market and PNB became an organ for the government to acquire controlling stakes in companies - both local and foreign.
Although ASN was geared towards benefiting the bumiputras, it would later evolve to include other races under Amanah Saham Wawasan.
Hussein's administration saw strides in positioning Malaysia as an influential voice on the world stage, with the prime minister playing an important role in charting the course for Asean, especially when Malaysia became the grouping's chair under his premiership.
Hussein, who was in the Indian army, strengthened ties with China which were renewed by his predecessor Tun Razak, who was also his brother-in-law. Hussein's son, Hishammuddin, is the current Umno Youth chief and education minister.
His foreign policy paid dividends with a leap in foreign investment. The economy also charted a 40% growth in 1978 - just two years after Hussein took over - undoubtedly due to the strong foundations set by both his predecessors.
Remembered for his meticulous style and for being a stickler for details - as evident from the pen, pencil and ruler he carried with him - cabinet meetings could go on for hours.
But his simplistic nature was also legendary. Former Asean secretary-general Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie best describes this while relating how Hussein and his Thai counterpart Gen. Kriangsak Chomanan resolved an oil dispute in the Gulf of Thailand at a kuey teow stall in Chiangmai.
"Instead of the hotel it was scheduled for, the treaty was signed over bowls of beef noodles - all because Hussein wanted to taste for himself if Kriangsak's endorsement of the beef kuey teow as the best in Thailand was true."
Hussein's words about power, which he continuously drummed into officialdom, continue to resonate for Malaysia till today: "Power is given to us not to lord it over others, not to improve our standing nor to enrich ourselves. Power must be used for the good and well-being of the people at all times. Power must always be used for the benefit of the people."
Under Tun Hussein Onn's premiership:
>> Amanah Saham Nasional created
>> Permodalan Nasional Bhd established
>> Rukun Tetangga launched
>> Koperasi Usaha Bersatu launched
>> Third Malaysia Plan launched
>> Federal Territories Ministry established in 1978
>> Malaysia becomes top semi-conductor exporter
Source: The Sun, Monday, July 30, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Policies emerging from May 13
Policies emerging from May 13
MANY consider the May 13, 1969 racial riot as the darkest chapter in our country’s 50 years of independence. Because it was such a traumatic event that scarred the nation, the government endeavoured, through national policies, to address the root causes that were thought to have sparked off the clashes.
According to the national unity and national integration department’s website, three major policies emerged after the riots namely, the National Education Policy, the National Cultural Policy (NCP) and the New Economic Policy (NEP). These policies were further strengthened with the introduction of the Rukunegara and other policies on national development and vision.
‘Mother of all policies’
Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, who joined the civil service in 1959 and was directly involved in the formulation of major public policies including the NEP, described the policy, introduced in 1970, as the “mother of all policies”.
“The dominant, underlying preoccupation was with administering the NEP. And the other policies have all emerged, in one way or another, from the NEP,” he told theSun.
Among others, Ramon was Finance Ministry deputy secretary-general from 1979-86. He retired in 1989 as Transport Ministry secretary-general. “I still subscribe to the goals of the NEP which was necessary and which has contributed greatly to our peace, stability and progress,” he said. However, Ramon remains dissatisfied with the NEP’s implementation. “It was not fully implemented according to its spirit.”
He said this has resulted in the prevalent polarisation and disunity among Malaysians which runs contrary to the NEP’s goal as envisaged by the then Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and his cabinet.
“The NEP has succeeded and also failed. It succeeded by reducing poverty drastically and in creating access for bumiputras into all areas of economy. “Today the bumiputras are well represented in all the major professions and dominate in the public sector at all levels.
“There is also a greater sense of economic and social stability, but these have been at the expense of national integration and unity,” he said. Ramon believes that if the NEP was implemented to remain faithful to its words and spirit, there would be no or much less polarisation.
“But it was abused when the minority gained at the expense of the majority,” he said. Referring to the bumiputras, he noted that the people who are penalised most are those whom the NEP was meant to help the most.
“That is why there is an income gap within the Malays, and between the Malays and non-Malays.”
When the NEP expired in 1990, many of its affirmative action approaches were continued in the National Development Policy, which was in place until 2000, when it was replaced by the National Vision Policy, effective until 2010.
Ramon stressed that it was not the NEP or the other related policies emerging from 1969 that were wrong. “It’s the bad implementation of these policies through bad governance, corruption and greed that has created a rentier class that has sought to benefit itself at the terrible expense of the poor and the underprivileged of all racial groups.”
That, he said, was certainly not the intention of the nation’s leaders such Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak and Tun Hussein Onn who were mainly responsible for the formulation and earlier implementation of the original NEP. Ramon also believes that the target for 30% bumiputra equity ownership – which has not been achieved according to the government – was not part of the original plan.
“The original target was social restructuring to remove the identification of race with economic functions. But slowly, the 30% target came in. Somebody introduced it during the implementation process but I can’t remember in which year.”
The long-standing debate on the NEP created a controversy earlier this year when it was revealed that bumiputra corporate equity ownership could have reached 45% – higher than the target of 30% and official figure of 18.9%. Ramon said it was crucial for Malaysia to begin introducing real competition at all levels for all Malaysians with assistance for the genuinely handicapped and underprivileged, regardless of race and religion, as was the NEP’s original vision.
Historian Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Khoo Kay Kim agrees that the NEP was “badly implemented”. He said the NEP aimed to balance the economic well-being between the Malays and non-Malays, but not by taking from the non-Malays’ portion.
“There was this theory of expanding the pie first to give more to the Malays. But, how do you get an expanding pie? “At that time, the leaders favoured industrialisation. They believed it was the answer to every country’s problem, rather than tin and rubber which were already considered old-fashioned then,” Khoo said.
On the NCP, Ramon said it started out with the good intention of fostering multi-culturalism but the nation has ended up with mono-culturalism instead. “We are a bit more multi-cultural but there is no direction or focus. It (the policy) has also been abused for political gain,” he said.
However, Khoo said the NCP did not emerge from May 13 because it was already in the pipeline since after independence in 1957. “It was always stressed, from the very beginning, that Malay culture would be the core of national culture while other cultures could be incorporated.”
Khoo was involved in providing input for the NCP. He considers two other post-May 13 outcomes as being more significant. First was the 1970 change of the Sixth Form exam from the Higher School Certificate (HSC) to the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM); and second, the 1974 establishment of Barisan Nasional (BN).
Pre-1970, Khoo said, the HSC exam was in English. As a result, Malay-medium students could not go to university; at that time only Universiti Malaya (UM) was around. Because of the change, in the early 1970s, UM was flooded with Malay school teachers who had sat for the STPM. “This had to do with May 13. The government wanted to speed up Malay development so that more of them could enter university and contribute to economic development.”
Continued Politicking
The BN was ostensibly formed to reduce communal politicking. Up to May 13, 1969 and a little later, three ethnic-based political parties formed the Alliance – Umno, the MCA and the MIC.
“The thinking was, after May 1969, if a unit or organisation could be created where the opposition parties could also come in, it would be possible to discuss critical sensitive issues within the organisation, without bringing them out to the public.”
“The BN was formed to reduce politicking. But, it never happened because they still brought these issues out to the public.
“It is bad enough when leaders of political parties don’t get along but when they get the public involved, the whole nation becomes like that, and instead of reducing politicking, it continues,” Khoo lamented. He said there was a need to revive the spirit of “unity in diversity” for a better future. He added that government efforts thus far to address disunity are insufficient.
“They have not succeeded yet. You have to find ways and means of getting the people together.
“It is possible. I can say that because I lived through a period in Malaysian history when that was possible,” Khoo, who turned 70 this year, said.
Source: Husna Yusop, The Sun, Friday, July 27, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
MANY consider the May 13, 1969 racial riot as the darkest chapter in our country’s 50 years of independence. Because it was such a traumatic event that scarred the nation, the government endeavoured, through national policies, to address the root causes that were thought to have sparked off the clashes.
According to the national unity and national integration department’s website, three major policies emerged after the riots namely, the National Education Policy, the National Cultural Policy (NCP) and the New Economic Policy (NEP). These policies were further strengthened with the introduction of the Rukunegara and other policies on national development and vision.
‘Mother of all policies’
Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, who joined the civil service in 1959 and was directly involved in the formulation of major public policies including the NEP, described the policy, introduced in 1970, as the “mother of all policies”.
“The dominant, underlying preoccupation was with administering the NEP. And the other policies have all emerged, in one way or another, from the NEP,” he told theSun.
Among others, Ramon was Finance Ministry deputy secretary-general from 1979-86. He retired in 1989 as Transport Ministry secretary-general. “I still subscribe to the goals of the NEP which was necessary and which has contributed greatly to our peace, stability and progress,” he said. However, Ramon remains dissatisfied with the NEP’s implementation. “It was not fully implemented according to its spirit.”
He said this has resulted in the prevalent polarisation and disunity among Malaysians which runs contrary to the NEP’s goal as envisaged by the then Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and his cabinet.
“The NEP has succeeded and also failed. It succeeded by reducing poverty drastically and in creating access for bumiputras into all areas of economy. “Today the bumiputras are well represented in all the major professions and dominate in the public sector at all levels.
“There is also a greater sense of economic and social stability, but these have been at the expense of national integration and unity,” he said. Ramon believes that if the NEP was implemented to remain faithful to its words and spirit, there would be no or much less polarisation.
“But it was abused when the minority gained at the expense of the majority,” he said. Referring to the bumiputras, he noted that the people who are penalised most are those whom the NEP was meant to help the most.
“That is why there is an income gap within the Malays, and between the Malays and non-Malays.”
When the NEP expired in 1990, many of its affirmative action approaches were continued in the National Development Policy, which was in place until 2000, when it was replaced by the National Vision Policy, effective until 2010.
Ramon stressed that it was not the NEP or the other related policies emerging from 1969 that were wrong. “It’s the bad implementation of these policies through bad governance, corruption and greed that has created a rentier class that has sought to benefit itself at the terrible expense of the poor and the underprivileged of all racial groups.”
That, he said, was certainly not the intention of the nation’s leaders such Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak and Tun Hussein Onn who were mainly responsible for the formulation and earlier implementation of the original NEP. Ramon also believes that the target for 30% bumiputra equity ownership – which has not been achieved according to the government – was not part of the original plan.
“The original target was social restructuring to remove the identification of race with economic functions. But slowly, the 30% target came in. Somebody introduced it during the implementation process but I can’t remember in which year.”
The long-standing debate on the NEP created a controversy earlier this year when it was revealed that bumiputra corporate equity ownership could have reached 45% – higher than the target of 30% and official figure of 18.9%. Ramon said it was crucial for Malaysia to begin introducing real competition at all levels for all Malaysians with assistance for the genuinely handicapped and underprivileged, regardless of race and religion, as was the NEP’s original vision.
Historian Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Khoo Kay Kim agrees that the NEP was “badly implemented”. He said the NEP aimed to balance the economic well-being between the Malays and non-Malays, but not by taking from the non-Malays’ portion.
“There was this theory of expanding the pie first to give more to the Malays. But, how do you get an expanding pie? “At that time, the leaders favoured industrialisation. They believed it was the answer to every country’s problem, rather than tin and rubber which were already considered old-fashioned then,” Khoo said.
On the NCP, Ramon said it started out with the good intention of fostering multi-culturalism but the nation has ended up with mono-culturalism instead. “We are a bit more multi-cultural but there is no direction or focus. It (the policy) has also been abused for political gain,” he said.
However, Khoo said the NCP did not emerge from May 13 because it was already in the pipeline since after independence in 1957. “It was always stressed, from the very beginning, that Malay culture would be the core of national culture while other cultures could be incorporated.”
Khoo was involved in providing input for the NCP. He considers two other post-May 13 outcomes as being more significant. First was the 1970 change of the Sixth Form exam from the Higher School Certificate (HSC) to the Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM); and second, the 1974 establishment of Barisan Nasional (BN).
Pre-1970, Khoo said, the HSC exam was in English. As a result, Malay-medium students could not go to university; at that time only Universiti Malaya (UM) was around. Because of the change, in the early 1970s, UM was flooded with Malay school teachers who had sat for the STPM. “This had to do with May 13. The government wanted to speed up Malay development so that more of them could enter university and contribute to economic development.”
Continued Politicking
The BN was ostensibly formed to reduce communal politicking. Up to May 13, 1969 and a little later, three ethnic-based political parties formed the Alliance – Umno, the MCA and the MIC.
“The thinking was, after May 1969, if a unit or organisation could be created where the opposition parties could also come in, it would be possible to discuss critical sensitive issues within the organisation, without bringing them out to the public.”
“The BN was formed to reduce politicking. But, it never happened because they still brought these issues out to the public.
“It is bad enough when leaders of political parties don’t get along but when they get the public involved, the whole nation becomes like that, and instead of reducing politicking, it continues,” Khoo lamented. He said there was a need to revive the spirit of “unity in diversity” for a better future. He added that government efforts thus far to address disunity are insufficient.
“They have not succeeded yet. You have to find ways and means of getting the people together.
“It is possible. I can say that because I lived through a period in Malaysian history when that was possible,” Khoo, who turned 70 this year, said.
Source: Husna Yusop, The Sun, Friday, July 27, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Watershed elections of 1969
Watershed elections of 1969
TECHNICALLY, the 1969 general election was the first national elections for Malaysia. Prior to that, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya had had their respective elections separately from 1963 to 1964.
Electorally, this explained part of the uncertainty over the outcome of the 1969 elections – 40 out of 144 representatives would be elected from East Malaysia. But, the actual uncertainty was smaller because Tun Mustapha Datu Harun’s United Sabah National Organisation (Usno) won 10 out of 16 seats unopposed for the Alliance on nomination day.
If winning a two-third parliamentary majority or 96 seats was the minimum goal for the Alliance, then it needed only to win another 86 seats, from the peninsula (104 seats), Sarawak (24) and Sabah (6). By 1969, the peninsula’s political landscape had changed significantly from 1964.
Firstly, a few opposition parties had faded out from the electoral arena. The People’s Action Party (PAP), for one, had retreated to Singapore after the island state was expelled from Malaysia in 1965, but the Democratic Action Party (DAP) continued its struggle here.
The once powerful Labour Party chose to boycott the elections to protest the mass arrests of its leaders. Meanwhile, former MCA president Lim Chong Eu had abandoned his United Democratic Party to form in 1968 a new centre-left party, Gerakan, with former Labour leaders like Tan Chee Khoon and university professors like Syed Hussin Al-Atas and Wang Gungwu. Secondly, old coalitions disintegrated and a new one was made. The Socialist Front (SF), which contested the 1959 and 1964 elections had collapsed due to the disputes over language and other issues between the Labour Party and Partai Rakyat (PR), leaving the latter to contest six seats on its own. The Malaysian Solidarity Convention (MSC), sponsored by the PAP, had died a natural death with the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.
Three parties competing for largely non-Malay support – the DAP, Gerakan and the People’s Progressive Party – had, however, reached an electoral pact to ensure a multi-cornered contest. In 1964, failure to put up a single candidate had cost the Opposition seven seats or 6.7% of the peninsula’s 104 seats. The Alliance won these seats instead despite more than half of the voters rejecting it.
The 1969 elections was dominated by communal sentiments over the questions of language, education and equality. The Alliance lost supporters to PAS and the three non-Malay opposition parties coming from two ends of the political spectrum.
Such competition is in fact not uncommon for the “centrist party” in multi-ethnic societies. In 1971, Zambia’s multi-ethnic ruling party Unip which led the country to independence found itself attacked by two opposition parties which represented competing ethnic interests. Unip’s defeat in five of eleven by-elections alarmed President Kaunda who in the end chose to ban opposition parties altogether and turned Zambia into a de jure one-party state.
Very interestingly, the attrition of Malay support was much higher than that of the non-Malays. Malay opposition parties’ vote shares in the peninsula increased drastically from about 15% in 1964 to 25% in 1969 while the support for non-Malay opposition parties remained roughly the same at 26% in both elections. Thanks to the electoral system, however, PAS seats increased from nine to 12 seats only while the non-Malay opposition parties from eight to 25.
The opposition parties’ gain at state level was more shocking to the Alliance Party which not only continued to lose to PAS in Kelantan, but also to political infant Gerakan in Penang. No party commanded an absolute majority in two other states. The Alliance held only 14 out of 24 seats in Selangor and 19 out of 40 in Perak. Some quarters became anxious that non-Malays would become mentris besar.
Two days after the announcement of the result, ethnic riots broke out in Kuala Lumpur on May 13 and soon spread to other areas. The official explanation blamed the riots on the opposition’s victory parades but declassified British intelligence have since pointed to other causes.
The riots prompted the declaration of Emergency Rule and the suspension of Parliament. Uncompleted elections in Sabah, Sarawak and a Malacca constituency were suspended. A selected circle of politicians, bureaucrats and security officers formed the National Operations Council (NOC) and ruled the country by decree until 1971.
Harshly attacked by young Malay nationalists in Umno including Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tunku stepped down in 1970 on ceremonial grounds, saying he did not want to serve as premier for the next Yang di-Pertuan Agong who was his nephew. In reality, many observers noted that the power had long passed into the hands of his deputy and successor Tun Abdul Razak.
The 1969 ethnic riots, officially attributed to inter-ethnic socio-economic disparity and political division, warranted sea changes in Malaysian society, in economy and politics. On the first front, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced to achieve its twin goals of poverty eradication and restructuring of society. The attrition of Malay support for Umno had clearly sent a powerful message.
To curb so-called “politicking”, once parliamentary rule was restored, the Constitution was immediately amended to place four sensitive issues, namely the special status of bumiputras (Article 153), national language (Article 152), the position of Malay Rulers (Article 181) and citizenship (Part II), beyond public discussion. Local elections, suspended since 1965, were permanently abolished in 1973.
Tun Razak’s coup de grace in consolidating Umno’s dominance was the formation of coalition governments at state and local levels in 1970 and 1971, followed by the expansion of the Alliance into Barisan Nasional (BN) by 1974.
The co-optation started with Sarawak after the resumption of elections in East Malaysia in mid-1970. Like Perak and Selangor, Sarawak had a hung assembly (totaling 48 seats), with two possible coalitions: a 23-seat coalition of Muslim- and Chinese-based parties or a 32-seat Dayak-Chinese coalition.
The federal government broke the deal for the former which resulted in a 35-seat coalition of a Muslim-dominated Sarawak Alliance (15 seats), Chinese-majority Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) (12 seats) and the Dayak-based Parti Pesaka (8 seats). SNAP, whose former leader was the first Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan, was left in the cold with twelve seats. In return also for its support in Parliament, SUPP was rewarded with a federal ministership.
The Sarawak formula was soon tried out in the peninsula. Despite holding a two-third majority, Penang’s ruling party Gerakan decided to share its state power with the Alliance in February 1972 in return for federal support and aid. This caused a break-up of the Gerakan party, producing the short-lived Pekemas party led by Dr Tan Chee Khoon.
The Alliance’s third coalition government was formed in Perak, at state and municipal levels, with the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) which ruled Ipoh. Nominally, PPP remained an opposition party at the federal level.
PPP’s gain, by being coopted, was perhaps the least of all the co-opted parties’ but it feared not having any other alternatives. As state governments started taking over municipal councils, it feared the loss of its power base in Ipoh.
Finally, on New Year’s Day of 1973, the Alliance and PAS sealed the last coalition agreement. PAS gained a number of federal and state positions while Umno benefited from two state executive council seats in Kelantan. On July 1, 1974, the Alliance and its new coalition partners officially re-engineered their coalition into the Barisan Nasional (BN). This brilliant project killed three birds with one stone.
>> it effectively eliminated nearly all political competition as the opposition seat share in Parliament shrunk from 37.5% to 15.3% with only the DAP and SNAP remaining as Opposition.
>> the proliferation of parties within the BN left Umno in a stronger position vis-a-vis its partners than in the Alliance era.
>> the proliferation has also provided differentiation, leading some voters to believe in the diversity of choices and alternatives within BN.
Compared to some leaders in the developing world who banned opposition parties, Tun Razak was a political genius. He understood the importance of government legitimacy. In his own words, “the view we take is that democratic government is the best and most acceptable form of government. So long as the form is preserved, the substance can be changed to suit conditions of a particular country”.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, The Sun, Thursday, July 26, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
TECHNICALLY, the 1969 general election was the first national elections for Malaysia. Prior to that, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya had had their respective elections separately from 1963 to 1964.
Electorally, this explained part of the uncertainty over the outcome of the 1969 elections – 40 out of 144 representatives would be elected from East Malaysia. But, the actual uncertainty was smaller because Tun Mustapha Datu Harun’s United Sabah National Organisation (Usno) won 10 out of 16 seats unopposed for the Alliance on nomination day.
If winning a two-third parliamentary majority or 96 seats was the minimum goal for the Alliance, then it needed only to win another 86 seats, from the peninsula (104 seats), Sarawak (24) and Sabah (6). By 1969, the peninsula’s political landscape had changed significantly from 1964.
Firstly, a few opposition parties had faded out from the electoral arena. The People’s Action Party (PAP), for one, had retreated to Singapore after the island state was expelled from Malaysia in 1965, but the Democratic Action Party (DAP) continued its struggle here.
The once powerful Labour Party chose to boycott the elections to protest the mass arrests of its leaders. Meanwhile, former MCA president Lim Chong Eu had abandoned his United Democratic Party to form in 1968 a new centre-left party, Gerakan, with former Labour leaders like Tan Chee Khoon and university professors like Syed Hussin Al-Atas and Wang Gungwu. Secondly, old coalitions disintegrated and a new one was made. The Socialist Front (SF), which contested the 1959 and 1964 elections had collapsed due to the disputes over language and other issues between the Labour Party and Partai Rakyat (PR), leaving the latter to contest six seats on its own. The Malaysian Solidarity Convention (MSC), sponsored by the PAP, had died a natural death with the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.
Three parties competing for largely non-Malay support – the DAP, Gerakan and the People’s Progressive Party – had, however, reached an electoral pact to ensure a multi-cornered contest. In 1964, failure to put up a single candidate had cost the Opposition seven seats or 6.7% of the peninsula’s 104 seats. The Alliance won these seats instead despite more than half of the voters rejecting it.
The 1969 elections was dominated by communal sentiments over the questions of language, education and equality. The Alliance lost supporters to PAS and the three non-Malay opposition parties coming from two ends of the political spectrum.
Such competition is in fact not uncommon for the “centrist party” in multi-ethnic societies. In 1971, Zambia’s multi-ethnic ruling party Unip which led the country to independence found itself attacked by two opposition parties which represented competing ethnic interests. Unip’s defeat in five of eleven by-elections alarmed President Kaunda who in the end chose to ban opposition parties altogether and turned Zambia into a de jure one-party state.
Very interestingly, the attrition of Malay support was much higher than that of the non-Malays. Malay opposition parties’ vote shares in the peninsula increased drastically from about 15% in 1964 to 25% in 1969 while the support for non-Malay opposition parties remained roughly the same at 26% in both elections. Thanks to the electoral system, however, PAS seats increased from nine to 12 seats only while the non-Malay opposition parties from eight to 25.
The opposition parties’ gain at state level was more shocking to the Alliance Party which not only continued to lose to PAS in Kelantan, but also to political infant Gerakan in Penang. No party commanded an absolute majority in two other states. The Alliance held only 14 out of 24 seats in Selangor and 19 out of 40 in Perak. Some quarters became anxious that non-Malays would become mentris besar.
Two days after the announcement of the result, ethnic riots broke out in Kuala Lumpur on May 13 and soon spread to other areas. The official explanation blamed the riots on the opposition’s victory parades but declassified British intelligence have since pointed to other causes.
The riots prompted the declaration of Emergency Rule and the suspension of Parliament. Uncompleted elections in Sabah, Sarawak and a Malacca constituency were suspended. A selected circle of politicians, bureaucrats and security officers formed the National Operations Council (NOC) and ruled the country by decree until 1971.
Harshly attacked by young Malay nationalists in Umno including Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tunku stepped down in 1970 on ceremonial grounds, saying he did not want to serve as premier for the next Yang di-Pertuan Agong who was his nephew. In reality, many observers noted that the power had long passed into the hands of his deputy and successor Tun Abdul Razak.
The 1969 ethnic riots, officially attributed to inter-ethnic socio-economic disparity and political division, warranted sea changes in Malaysian society, in economy and politics. On the first front, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced to achieve its twin goals of poverty eradication and restructuring of society. The attrition of Malay support for Umno had clearly sent a powerful message.
To curb so-called “politicking”, once parliamentary rule was restored, the Constitution was immediately amended to place four sensitive issues, namely the special status of bumiputras (Article 153), national language (Article 152), the position of Malay Rulers (Article 181) and citizenship (Part II), beyond public discussion. Local elections, suspended since 1965, were permanently abolished in 1973.
Tun Razak’s coup de grace in consolidating Umno’s dominance was the formation of coalition governments at state and local levels in 1970 and 1971, followed by the expansion of the Alliance into Barisan Nasional (BN) by 1974.
The co-optation started with Sarawak after the resumption of elections in East Malaysia in mid-1970. Like Perak and Selangor, Sarawak had a hung assembly (totaling 48 seats), with two possible coalitions: a 23-seat coalition of Muslim- and Chinese-based parties or a 32-seat Dayak-Chinese coalition.
The federal government broke the deal for the former which resulted in a 35-seat coalition of a Muslim-dominated Sarawak Alliance (15 seats), Chinese-majority Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) (12 seats) and the Dayak-based Parti Pesaka (8 seats). SNAP, whose former leader was the first Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan, was left in the cold with twelve seats. In return also for its support in Parliament, SUPP was rewarded with a federal ministership.
The Sarawak formula was soon tried out in the peninsula. Despite holding a two-third majority, Penang’s ruling party Gerakan decided to share its state power with the Alliance in February 1972 in return for federal support and aid. This caused a break-up of the Gerakan party, producing the short-lived Pekemas party led by Dr Tan Chee Khoon.
The Alliance’s third coalition government was formed in Perak, at state and municipal levels, with the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) which ruled Ipoh. Nominally, PPP remained an opposition party at the federal level.
PPP’s gain, by being coopted, was perhaps the least of all the co-opted parties’ but it feared not having any other alternatives. As state governments started taking over municipal councils, it feared the loss of its power base in Ipoh.
Finally, on New Year’s Day of 1973, the Alliance and PAS sealed the last coalition agreement. PAS gained a number of federal and state positions while Umno benefited from two state executive council seats in Kelantan. On July 1, 1974, the Alliance and its new coalition partners officially re-engineered their coalition into the Barisan Nasional (BN). This brilliant project killed three birds with one stone.
>> it effectively eliminated nearly all political competition as the opposition seat share in Parliament shrunk from 37.5% to 15.3% with only the DAP and SNAP remaining as Opposition.
>> the proliferation of parties within the BN left Umno in a stronger position vis-a-vis its partners than in the Alliance era.
>> the proliferation has also provided differentiation, leading some voters to believe in the diversity of choices and alternatives within BN.
Compared to some leaders in the developing world who banned opposition parties, Tun Razak was a political genius. He understood the importance of government legitimacy. In his own words, “the view we take is that democratic government is the best and most acceptable form of government. So long as the form is preserved, the substance can be changed to suit conditions of a particular country”.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, The Sun, Thursday, July 26, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Why did it happen? (May 13, 1969)
Why did it happen? (May 13, 1969)
It was bound to happen and was waiting to happen.
Much of the underlying causes could have been resolved early, and some of the symptoms could have been heeded to nip the problem before it conflagrated. In fact, even as early as the 1959 general election when there was much racial tension within the Alliance and outside of it, some observed that the country’s worst enemy was not the communists in the jungles but communalism in the cities.
Beginning with the communist terrorist activities against the Malays after the Japanese surrender, to the Malayan Union where the non-Malays were happy with the rights they got, to the Federation of Malaya where they lost much of these rights and the Malays had their special rights entrenched, communalism festered.
It reared its ugly head prior to the 1955 general election, during the drafting of the national constitution, and prior to the 1959 elections.
The various rights – Malay special rights, citizenship rights, language, culture and education – were publicly debated when the People’s Action Party (PAP) participated in Malaysian politics after Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963.
Because the Alliance participated in the Singapore elections in 1963, the PAP participated in the federal elections in 1964 and told the Chinese not to vote for MCA for betraying them to the Malays.
Preparations were made to defeat the PAP in the Singapore elections scheduled for 1967. Malaysian radio and televisions accused the PAP of undermining racial harmony, while Singapore radio and television called for a “Malaysian Malaysia”, meritocracy and the removal of quotas.
Following the 1965 ouster of Singapore from Malaysia, much of the discussion on these issues were somewhat muffled. But all stops were pulled during the five week campaign period before polling day on May 10, 1969.
Bloody incidents were also not new to the country. Beginning with the January 1957 incident in Penang where four people were killed, there were minor clashes between small groups of Malays and Chinese long before 1969.
But the foretaste of the communal violence to come erupted in November 1967 in Penang where political demonstrations eventually spread to Perak and Kedah, resulting in 25 people being killed.
Meanwhile, the DAP and the newly formed Gerakan grew into formidable rivals. Where the Alliance thought the general election was a walkover, it suddenly had to contend with these two parties which attracted Chinese and Indian voters in droves.
During the long campaign period, the DAP spoke quite unreservedly about a Malaysian Malaysia. It targeted the MCA for letting down the Chinese with the passing of the National Language Act 1967 and for accepting the use of Malay as the sole medium of instruction in school.
Gerakan felt strongly that the special Malay rights and the language policy in schools were inequitable to other races. The MCA and MIC had to defend the Alliance stand, while Umno had to fend off PAS’s allegations that it was “selling out the Malays to the immigrant races”.
The Labour Party, allegedly communist infiltrated, did not participate in the elections but were busy organising demonstrations against the government. Just a fortnight before polling day, an Umno member was murdered, allegedly by a Labour Party member. Tensions ran high but was quickly contained.
Ten days later, police shot dead a Labour Party member for resisting arrest in Kuala Lumpur. The party applied for a police permit to hold a funeral procession on May 10 – polling day. Permission, however, was granted for May 9. About 10,000 people took part and they flouted every police instruction, including the routes they were supposed to take.
They passed through the heart of Kuala Lumpur and clogged up traffic on almost every street. They carried the Red Flag and portraits of Mao-zedong and sang The East is Red. They provoked Malay bystanders with shouts of “Malai si” (“Death to the Malays!”) and “Hutang darah dibayar darah” (“Blood debts will be repaid with blood”).
It was to the credit of the Royal Malaysian Police that nothing ugly happened that day. But it set the stage and primed the mood for what was to happen following the “celebrations” on May 11 and 12. While it is a dark blot in the nation’s history, Malaysians – old and young – will never be allowed to forget May 13. Mostly, it is used to scare people away from public discussions and debate on such subjects as citizenship, education, culture and religion.
We are constantly reminded of the incident so that we will refrain from questioning the regime in place, from saying things about it or doing things that may be construed as undermining racial harmony and national unity.
Many are agreed that Malaysians should also treat May 13 as a lasting reminder of the danger of disregarding the Merdeka Constitution and of playing about with the sensitivities, customs and traditions of the country’s various ethnic groups.
Source: The Sun, Thursday, July 26, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
It was bound to happen and was waiting to happen.
Much of the underlying causes could have been resolved early, and some of the symptoms could have been heeded to nip the problem before it conflagrated. In fact, even as early as the 1959 general election when there was much racial tension within the Alliance and outside of it, some observed that the country’s worst enemy was not the communists in the jungles but communalism in the cities.
Beginning with the communist terrorist activities against the Malays after the Japanese surrender, to the Malayan Union where the non-Malays were happy with the rights they got, to the Federation of Malaya where they lost much of these rights and the Malays had their special rights entrenched, communalism festered.
It reared its ugly head prior to the 1955 general election, during the drafting of the national constitution, and prior to the 1959 elections.
The various rights – Malay special rights, citizenship rights, language, culture and education – were publicly debated when the People’s Action Party (PAP) participated in Malaysian politics after Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963.
Because the Alliance participated in the Singapore elections in 1963, the PAP participated in the federal elections in 1964 and told the Chinese not to vote for MCA for betraying them to the Malays.
Preparations were made to defeat the PAP in the Singapore elections scheduled for 1967. Malaysian radio and televisions accused the PAP of undermining racial harmony, while Singapore radio and television called for a “Malaysian Malaysia”, meritocracy and the removal of quotas.
Following the 1965 ouster of Singapore from Malaysia, much of the discussion on these issues were somewhat muffled. But all stops were pulled during the five week campaign period before polling day on May 10, 1969.
Bloody incidents were also not new to the country. Beginning with the January 1957 incident in Penang where four people were killed, there were minor clashes between small groups of Malays and Chinese long before 1969.
But the foretaste of the communal violence to come erupted in November 1967 in Penang where political demonstrations eventually spread to Perak and Kedah, resulting in 25 people being killed.
Meanwhile, the DAP and the newly formed Gerakan grew into formidable rivals. Where the Alliance thought the general election was a walkover, it suddenly had to contend with these two parties which attracted Chinese and Indian voters in droves.
During the long campaign period, the DAP spoke quite unreservedly about a Malaysian Malaysia. It targeted the MCA for letting down the Chinese with the passing of the National Language Act 1967 and for accepting the use of Malay as the sole medium of instruction in school.
Gerakan felt strongly that the special Malay rights and the language policy in schools were inequitable to other races. The MCA and MIC had to defend the Alliance stand, while Umno had to fend off PAS’s allegations that it was “selling out the Malays to the immigrant races”.
The Labour Party, allegedly communist infiltrated, did not participate in the elections but were busy organising demonstrations against the government. Just a fortnight before polling day, an Umno member was murdered, allegedly by a Labour Party member. Tensions ran high but was quickly contained.
Ten days later, police shot dead a Labour Party member for resisting arrest in Kuala Lumpur. The party applied for a police permit to hold a funeral procession on May 10 – polling day. Permission, however, was granted for May 9. About 10,000 people took part and they flouted every police instruction, including the routes they were supposed to take.
They passed through the heart of Kuala Lumpur and clogged up traffic on almost every street. They carried the Red Flag and portraits of Mao-zedong and sang The East is Red. They provoked Malay bystanders with shouts of “Malai si” (“Death to the Malays!”) and “Hutang darah dibayar darah” (“Blood debts will be repaid with blood”).
It was to the credit of the Royal Malaysian Police that nothing ugly happened that day. But it set the stage and primed the mood for what was to happen following the “celebrations” on May 11 and 12. While it is a dark blot in the nation’s history, Malaysians – old and young – will never be allowed to forget May 13. Mostly, it is used to scare people away from public discussions and debate on such subjects as citizenship, education, culture and religion.
We are constantly reminded of the incident so that we will refrain from questioning the regime in place, from saying things about it or doing things that may be construed as undermining racial harmony and national unity.
Many are agreed that Malaysians should also treat May 13 as a lasting reminder of the danger of disregarding the Merdeka Constitution and of playing about with the sensitivities, customs and traditions of the country’s various ethnic groups.
Source: The Sun, Thursday, July 26, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The tragedy of May 13, 1969
The tragedy of May 13, 1969
WHEN in 1968 the Alliance began preparations for a renewal of its mandate which was due to end in 1969, little did it suspect what the results would unlock.
As far as it was concerned, the 1969 general election was to be a routine affair, and there was no doubt in the mind of Alliance leaders that it would win as decisively as it did in 1964.
After all, the cancer that was Singapore had been cast off in 1965, the economy was happily humming, the Indonesian confrontation had just ended and diplomatic relations with the Southeast Asian giant re-established, and the opposition was weak and fragmented.
The Alliance boasted that it could easily win more than two thirds of the 144 seats in the Dewan Rakyat or about two thirds of the 104 Peninsular Malaysia seats, capture Kelantan, and retain control of all the other state legislatures. But that confidence was shattered in the early hours of May 11, 1969 when the results of the May 10 elections were known.
The Alliance had won only 66 seats, down from the 89 it won in 1964. It also lost Penang, failed to capture Kelantan, and came close to losing Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Terengganu. The Opposition was surprised, too. The DAP, which reconstituted itself from the People’s Action Party (PAP), won 13 seats when the Singapore-based party had only one in 1964. PAS got 12 seats, an increase of three; PPP won four, an increase of two; while the new party Gerakan won eight. Even though the Alliance had not lost power – and Sabah and Sarawak had yet to decide – the Malays were alarmed. They felt that the government they had dominated all this while was going to collapse.
During the Alliance meeting held to assess the results, a number of Malay representatives blamed the losses on the MCA which saw 20 of its 33 candidates defeated. Hurt and weak, the MCA announced on May 13 that it would not participate in the government at federal and state levels. What appeared as punishment of the MCA by Umno became an additional factor contributing to further racial tensions and anxieties.
Opposition supporters, especially the Chinese and Indians who had voted for the DAP and Gerakan were jubilant. And they showed it. They celebrated their “victories” by marching through Kuala Lumpur and in their exuberance shouted insulting epithets at Malays living near the city fringes. They even showed vulgar gestures at Malay women.
On May 12, Gerakan got police permission for 1,000 party members and supporters to hold their own demonstrations that evening. Word got around quickly and the number swelled to 4,000 which later broke up into smaller groups that conducted their own “demonstrations” away from the restrain of party leaders. They, too, taunted the Malays with insults, using similar words that had been hurled by the previous day’s demonstrators, such as: “Melayu balik kampung, kita sudah berkuasa sekarang” (“Malays, return to your villages, we are now in power”) and “Hey Sakai bolih balik ke hutan” (“Hey Sakai, you can return to the jungle”).
Meanwhile, groups of Malays from outside Kuala Lumpur gathered at Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Harun Idris’ house in Kampung Baru. They urged Harun to lead a victory demonstration to show they had not lost power. Before long, it was announced a demonstration would begin from Harun’s house at 7.30pm on May 13.
Violence started at about 6pm that day when about 100 Malays from Gombak made their way through Setapak – the scene of the previous evening’s demonstrations – carrying banners and shouting slogans. Soon, street clashes broke out between them and Chinese and Indian youths. Parang, sticks and iron pipes were used.
Most of the Malay demonstrators made it to Harun’s house where exaggerated versions of what happened had already reached the 5,000 people gathered there. They were in an ugly mood. When some Chinese and Indians in a passing bus made some taunting remarks at them, the vehicle was attacked. By 6.40pm, the first three Chinese lay dead beside the road.
Word of what happened in Setapak and Kampung Baru spread and within hours the whole city was engulfed in communal rioting the size of which had never been experienced by the country before.
The worst of the rioting burned itself out during that first night.
On May 14, a state of Emergency was declared and Parliament was suspended indefinitely. On May 16, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman set up the National Operations Council (NOC) to rule the country by decree with his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, as director of operations.
Sporadic small clashes continued after May 14 and they fizzled out only after about a month. The last serious outbreak was between Malays and Indians on June 28 in Kuala Lumpur in which five people were killed.
In January 1970, Tun Razak set up a National Consultative Council to find ways to promote and strengthe racial harmony so that normalcy would return and Parliament restored. On Sept 21, the Tunku retired as prime minister, depressed and sad that the racial harmony he had devoted much of his political life to strengthen had collapsed under his watch.
Tun Razak succeeded Tunku as the country’s second prime minister, and eventually the NOC came to an end after 21 months, and Parliament convened again on Feb 23, 1971.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Thursday, July 26, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
WHEN in 1968 the Alliance began preparations for a renewal of its mandate which was due to end in 1969, little did it suspect what the results would unlock.
As far as it was concerned, the 1969 general election was to be a routine affair, and there was no doubt in the mind of Alliance leaders that it would win as decisively as it did in 1964.
After all, the cancer that was Singapore had been cast off in 1965, the economy was happily humming, the Indonesian confrontation had just ended and diplomatic relations with the Southeast Asian giant re-established, and the opposition was weak and fragmented.
The Alliance boasted that it could easily win more than two thirds of the 144 seats in the Dewan Rakyat or about two thirds of the 104 Peninsular Malaysia seats, capture Kelantan, and retain control of all the other state legislatures. But that confidence was shattered in the early hours of May 11, 1969 when the results of the May 10 elections were known.
The Alliance had won only 66 seats, down from the 89 it won in 1964. It also lost Penang, failed to capture Kelantan, and came close to losing Perak, Selangor, Kedah and Terengganu. The Opposition was surprised, too. The DAP, which reconstituted itself from the People’s Action Party (PAP), won 13 seats when the Singapore-based party had only one in 1964. PAS got 12 seats, an increase of three; PPP won four, an increase of two; while the new party Gerakan won eight. Even though the Alliance had not lost power – and Sabah and Sarawak had yet to decide – the Malays were alarmed. They felt that the government they had dominated all this while was going to collapse.
During the Alliance meeting held to assess the results, a number of Malay representatives blamed the losses on the MCA which saw 20 of its 33 candidates defeated. Hurt and weak, the MCA announced on May 13 that it would not participate in the government at federal and state levels. What appeared as punishment of the MCA by Umno became an additional factor contributing to further racial tensions and anxieties.
Opposition supporters, especially the Chinese and Indians who had voted for the DAP and Gerakan were jubilant. And they showed it. They celebrated their “victories” by marching through Kuala Lumpur and in their exuberance shouted insulting epithets at Malays living near the city fringes. They even showed vulgar gestures at Malay women.
On May 12, Gerakan got police permission for 1,000 party members and supporters to hold their own demonstrations that evening. Word got around quickly and the number swelled to 4,000 which later broke up into smaller groups that conducted their own “demonstrations” away from the restrain of party leaders. They, too, taunted the Malays with insults, using similar words that had been hurled by the previous day’s demonstrators, such as: “Melayu balik kampung, kita sudah berkuasa sekarang” (“Malays, return to your villages, we are now in power”) and “Hey Sakai bolih balik ke hutan” (“Hey Sakai, you can return to the jungle”).
Meanwhile, groups of Malays from outside Kuala Lumpur gathered at Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Harun Idris’ house in Kampung Baru. They urged Harun to lead a victory demonstration to show they had not lost power. Before long, it was announced a demonstration would begin from Harun’s house at 7.30pm on May 13.
Violence started at about 6pm that day when about 100 Malays from Gombak made their way through Setapak – the scene of the previous evening’s demonstrations – carrying banners and shouting slogans. Soon, street clashes broke out between them and Chinese and Indian youths. Parang, sticks and iron pipes were used.
Most of the Malay demonstrators made it to Harun’s house where exaggerated versions of what happened had already reached the 5,000 people gathered there. They were in an ugly mood. When some Chinese and Indians in a passing bus made some taunting remarks at them, the vehicle was attacked. By 6.40pm, the first three Chinese lay dead beside the road.
Word of what happened in Setapak and Kampung Baru spread and within hours the whole city was engulfed in communal rioting the size of which had never been experienced by the country before.
The worst of the rioting burned itself out during that first night.
On May 14, a state of Emergency was declared and Parliament was suspended indefinitely. On May 16, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman set up the National Operations Council (NOC) to rule the country by decree with his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, as director of operations.
Sporadic small clashes continued after May 14 and they fizzled out only after about a month. The last serious outbreak was between Malays and Indians on June 28 in Kuala Lumpur in which five people were killed.
In January 1970, Tun Razak set up a National Consultative Council to find ways to promote and strengthe racial harmony so that normalcy would return and Parliament restored. On Sept 21, the Tunku retired as prime minister, depressed and sad that the racial harmony he had devoted much of his political life to strengthen had collapsed under his watch.
Tun Razak succeeded Tunku as the country’s second prime minister, and eventually the NOC came to an end after 21 months, and Parliament convened again on Feb 23, 1971.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Thursday, July 26, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Monday, 30 July 2007
Tunku Abdul Rahman (1957-70)
Father of Independence
Arguably the most loved of Malaysian prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman exuded grace and warmth, but had a steely resolve.
Who can forget the Tunku's calm demeanour in defusing what would have been a riot when supporters of Sports Minister Datuk Harun Idris tried to prevent the police from arresting him for corruption in 1978?
"If you do not obey the law, then this country would go to the dogs for Umno is the custodian of liberty and justice."
After saying his piece, the crowd parted and allowed Harun to surrender. Such was the Tunku's effect and influence.
Still, in 1987, despite being the patron of and a columnist at The Star, the government suspended the daily for six months following a front-page report that was deemed sympathetic to Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees who had been arrested during Operation Lallang.
"I am Bapa Malaysia (the Father of Malaysia). So how can they say it is a threat to national security?" said the bitter Tunku.
His greatest achievement was, of course, gaining independence and securing the formation of Malaysia, but his post-premiership saw him push even harder for a united nation for fear that the race to acquire wealth was causing internal conflicts within the various communities.
The Tunku maintained the need for special privileges for the majority but also made it clear that this had to be in tandem with the protection of the rights of the minority.
His first words to newly-independent Malaya via a radio address are immortalised: "Independence was won by the spontaneous support of all communities in this country - Malays, Chinese, Indians and others who regard Malaya as their home."
The May 13, 1969 tragedy marked the end of Tunku's premiership. In September 1970, he resigned in favour of his long-time and loyal deputy Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.
But in spite of the adversities he faced, the Tunku never lost his wit. theSun's political editor Zainon Ahmad remembers one meeting with the Tunku.
"Tunku was old and in frail health. I was to interview him with the understanding that it might be his last interview. Arriving at his home, I saw the Tunku in shorts and slippers cleaning the drain.
"He said: 'Hang nak interview saya buat apa? Saya dah tua. Dah tak penting lagi. Hah! You ni nak buat obituary lah ni! (What do you want to interview me for? I'm already old. No longer important. Hah! You want to write my obituary, don't you!) Ok, then. If we have to, then let's do a good job of it!'"
Former New Straits Times news editor Felix Abisheganaden remembers Tunku for his openness and as a friend of the press.
"He would always ask us for our opinion. He would say that the press and the government were one and made us feel that we were also playing our role in nation building," said Abisheganaden.
Press conferences, he reminisced, would be preceded by a round of drinks.
"When everyone was high and happy, he'd say: 'Ok gentlemen, what are we here to discuss?' And he'd give you the whole story."
Abisheganaden said Tunku's wit and humour were legendary, citing an incident upon Tunku's return from the Haj together with then Education Minister Khir Johari (later Tan Sri).
"When the press asked him: 'Sir, we can refer to you as Tunku Abdul Rahman Al Haj, but how do we refer to Encik Khir?', Tunku's reply was, 'That's simple. Call him Khir Johari Al Cohol.'"
Describing the Tunku's administration as the "golden years", Abisheganaden said it was an innocent period before ultra-racial sentiments started creeping in.
"Tunku's liberal lifestyle was, of course, the focus, and he was called un-Islamic," Abisheganaden said referring to Tunku's critics, PAS and Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Despite the manoeuvrings in Umno to get rid of him, the Tunku was steadfast. "I will resign properly," he said.
And this, according to Abisheganaden, was how the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) came about. "The Saudis decided on having this body and elected Tunku as its first secretary-general. You can say the OIC started off as a retirement plan for the Tunku!"
Under Tunku Abdul Rahman's premiership:
>> Bahasa Melayu becomes the official language
>>Bank Negara and Bank Bumiputra are formed
>>The Emergency ends with the historic 1955 Baling talks
>>Primary education is given free
>>Malaysia is formed
>>Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) is formed
>>The Youth and Sports Ministry is established
>>Three-year Confrontation with Indonesia ends
>>First Malaysia Plan launched
>>Asean, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, is formed
>>Majlis Amanah Rakyat or Mara, to encourage and develop bumiputra entrepreneurship, is established
>>Malaysia International Shipping Corporation is established
>>Makes Islam the official religion
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Arguably the most loved of Malaysian prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman exuded grace and warmth, but had a steely resolve.
Who can forget the Tunku's calm demeanour in defusing what would have been a riot when supporters of Sports Minister Datuk Harun Idris tried to prevent the police from arresting him for corruption in 1978?
"If you do not obey the law, then this country would go to the dogs for Umno is the custodian of liberty and justice."
After saying his piece, the crowd parted and allowed Harun to surrender. Such was the Tunku's effect and influence.
Still, in 1987, despite being the patron of and a columnist at The Star, the government suspended the daily for six months following a front-page report that was deemed sympathetic to Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees who had been arrested during Operation Lallang.
"I am Bapa Malaysia (the Father of Malaysia). So how can they say it is a threat to national security?" said the bitter Tunku.
His greatest achievement was, of course, gaining independence and securing the formation of Malaysia, but his post-premiership saw him push even harder for a united nation for fear that the race to acquire wealth was causing internal conflicts within the various communities.
The Tunku maintained the need for special privileges for the majority but also made it clear that this had to be in tandem with the protection of the rights of the minority.
His first words to newly-independent Malaya via a radio address are immortalised: "Independence was won by the spontaneous support of all communities in this country - Malays, Chinese, Indians and others who regard Malaya as their home."
The May 13, 1969 tragedy marked the end of Tunku's premiership. In September 1970, he resigned in favour of his long-time and loyal deputy Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.
But in spite of the adversities he faced, the Tunku never lost his wit. theSun's political editor Zainon Ahmad remembers one meeting with the Tunku.
"Tunku was old and in frail health. I was to interview him with the understanding that it might be his last interview. Arriving at his home, I saw the Tunku in shorts and slippers cleaning the drain.
"He said: 'Hang nak interview saya buat apa? Saya dah tua. Dah tak penting lagi. Hah! You ni nak buat obituary lah ni! (What do you want to interview me for? I'm already old. No longer important. Hah! You want to write my obituary, don't you!) Ok, then. If we have to, then let's do a good job of it!'"
Former New Straits Times news editor Felix Abisheganaden remembers Tunku for his openness and as a friend of the press.
"He would always ask us for our opinion. He would say that the press and the government were one and made us feel that we were also playing our role in nation building," said Abisheganaden.
Press conferences, he reminisced, would be preceded by a round of drinks.
"When everyone was high and happy, he'd say: 'Ok gentlemen, what are we here to discuss?' And he'd give you the whole story."
Abisheganaden said Tunku's wit and humour were legendary, citing an incident upon Tunku's return from the Haj together with then Education Minister Khir Johari (later Tan Sri).
"When the press asked him: 'Sir, we can refer to you as Tunku Abdul Rahman Al Haj, but how do we refer to Encik Khir?', Tunku's reply was, 'That's simple. Call him Khir Johari Al Cohol.'"
Describing the Tunku's administration as the "golden years", Abisheganaden said it was an innocent period before ultra-racial sentiments started creeping in.
"Tunku's liberal lifestyle was, of course, the focus, and he was called un-Islamic," Abisheganaden said referring to Tunku's critics, PAS and Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Despite the manoeuvrings in Umno to get rid of him, the Tunku was steadfast. "I will resign properly," he said.
And this, according to Abisheganaden, was how the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) came about. "The Saudis decided on having this body and elected Tunku as its first secretary-general. You can say the OIC started off as a retirement plan for the Tunku!"
Under Tunku Abdul Rahman's premiership:
>> Bahasa Melayu becomes the official language
>>Bank Negara and Bank Bumiputra are formed
>>The Emergency ends with the historic 1955 Baling talks
>>Primary education is given free
>>Malaysia is formed
>>Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) is formed
>>The Youth and Sports Ministry is established
>>Three-year Confrontation with Indonesia ends
>>First Malaysia Plan launched
>>Asean, or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, is formed
>>Majlis Amanah Rakyat or Mara, to encourage and develop bumiputra entrepreneurship, is established
>>Malaysia International Shipping Corporation is established
>>Makes Islam the official religion
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Weakened Federalism in the New Federation
Weakened Federalism in the New Federation
The defeat of the Malayan Union project (1946-1948) left two legacies for the later Federation of Malaysia. The first was Umno's dominance which has since prevented the emergence of liberal and plural democracy in Malaysia. The second was federalism.
Umno demanded for federalism because the Malayan Union was a unitary state which denied the nine Malay states their sovereignty and transformed them from protectorates, technically speaking, into de jure colonies. The 1948 entity of the Federation of Malaya borrowed ideas from other Anglophone federations like India, Australia and the United States.
Had it worked out well, the second legacy may have been the remedy for the first.
After all, in federalism, sovereignty and power are shared between national and sub-national entities. Such vertical divisions of power between the governments at different levels provide for check-and-balance, just like the horizontal separation of power between the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judiciary.
The logic is simple: with free and fair elections, it is unlikely that a single party can monopolise governments at all levels resulting in an effective, but undesirable, fusion of party and state.
How far this works, however, very much depends on the actual degree of decentralisation. Many nominally unitary states, including the UK, have transferred substantial amounts of power to lower level governments. While devolution to provincial governments aims to arrest separatist demands, decentralisation in jurisdictions like education, transportation, and the police allows responsiveness and adaptation to local needs.
In contrast, our federalism is highly centralised. Our federalism gives the federal government not only the most legislative and executive powers but also the most important sources of revenue. State governments are excluded from the revenues of income tax, export, import and excise duties, and they are also largely restricted from borrowing internationally. They have to depend on revenue from forests, lands, mines, petroleum, the entertainment industry, and finally, transfer payments from the central government.
Such restrictions however did not stop political pluralism from flourishing via federalism in the past. In 1959, the ratio of state government control between the Alliance and PAS was a healthy 9:2. PAS won 28 out of 30 state seats in Kelantan, which it ruled alone until 1973 and in coalition with the Alliance until 1977, shortly before losing it to Umno in the 1978 state elections.
Its hold on Terengganu in 1959 was much weaker with its capture of 13 out of 24 seats, while the Alliance held seven and Datuk Onn Jaafar's Parti Negara the remaining two. A no-confidence vote, aided by defection, ended the opposition state government there two years later.
The federal-state relation between the Alliance and PAS then was far from friendly. PAS accused Umno of not helping the Malays while Umno slammed PAS for administrative incompetence. The electorate in the PAS stronghold were threatened with no development and not unlike the tactics used in later years, the central government sometimes bypassed the state in delivering financial aid.
The establishment of Malaysia in 1963 worsened federal-state relations as the Kelantan state government was not consulted and was actually opposed to the favourable conditions granted to the new states of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.
In the subsequent 1964 elections, during the period of konfrontasi with Indonesia, PAS was accused of being supported by Indonesia and hence, of disloyalty.
New states, worse conflicts
However, the conflicts between the Federal Government and the new states of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak soon dwarfed the antagonism between Kuala Lumpur and Kota Baru.
Within three years of Malaysia's birth, one of these defiant trio - Singapore - faced expulsion and another - Sarawak - had a regime change delivered via centrally-imposed emergency rule. Kelantan eventually had its emergency rule, too, in 1977.
One may understand better the intolerance of the Alliance federal government by studying the raison d'etre and context of the larger federation.
Tunku moved the idea of a Malaya-Singapore merger in 1961 to prevent the island from falling into the hand of the communists and becoming a Cuba in Malaya's backyard. This concern was shared by Singapore Chief Minister Lee Kuan Yew. The federation was also expected to benefit from Singapore's trading port.
Meanwhile, Sabah, Sarawak, and originally also Brunei, were brought into the picture for two reasons. Firstly, Borneo's native population, classified as bumiputra together with the Malays in Malaya, would help restore the "native-immigrant" ethnic balance after the addition of Singaporean Chinese and Indians. It is noteworthy, however, that in 1963, the Chinese and Indians made up 51% of newly-formed Malaysia's population while the bumiputra constituted only 47%.
The second reason for expanding the federation was that Britain was ready to relinquish her Borneo colonies, and Kuala Lumpur definitely preferred them to be "family" rather than just independent neighbours or part of Indonesia or the Philippines.
As Malaysia was very much a cleverly-calculated answer to different challenges, assertive states with their own mind would reduce, if not remove altogether, the expected payoff for the merger's chief architect, mover and beneficiary - Kuala Lumpur.
Hence, while state autonomy and rights were not seen as a threat to national cohesion and territorial integrity for Malaya in the late 1940s, it had become so for Malaysia in the 1960s. The sense of insecurity in Kuala Lumpur was perhaps also accelerated by the threats from Indonesia and the Philippines, both of which had territorial ambitions over the Borneo states.
>> Singapore was both the first challenger, and the first arena of rivalry. Politically the most sophisticated among the new Malaysian states, it had become self-governing by 1959. While the Malayan Alliance organised pro-Malaysian parties in Sarawak and Sabah into the Sarawak Alliance and the Sabah Alliance as sister parties, the same did not happen in Singapore.
When Singapore had its election in 1963, the Malayan Alliance organised a Singapore Alliance to contest against the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). All Alliance candidates met their Waterloo, including those of Singapore Umno, which lost to PAP's Malay candidates.
In retaliation, PAP contested 11 federal seats in Malaya in the 1964 elections. PAP attacked the MCA, which it blamed for the 1963 rivalry and accused of corruption and incompetence. Although winning only one seat in the peninsula, the Kuala Lumpur Parliament saw PAP parliamentarians from Singapore crossing swords with Alliance ministers over both the economic interests of Singapore and the rights of non-Malays nationwide.
Because its wish for a coalition government with Umno or the Alliance was rejected both before and after the elections, the PAP decided to build an alternative coalition, the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, with four other parties from Malaya and Sarawak.
PAP's plan of a Chinese-Bornean pact upset the Malay-Bornean coalition envisioned by Umno when Malaysia was designed.
Vowing to replace Umno's "Malay Malaysia" with a "Malaysian Malaysia", both the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew began to eye the positions of Umno and of Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Instead of detaining Lee and PAP leaders under the Internal Security Act, as some in his party demanded, Tunku eventually chose to expel Singapore altogether on Aug 9, 1965 to end the standoff.
>> In Sabah, Donald (later Fuad) Stephens, who led the Sabah Alliance government, fell out with Kuala Lumpur as he firmed up his position on the so-called "Twenty Points" - specific state rights in matters like immigration, religion, language and education that were granted to Sabah and Sarawak upon the formation of Malaysia.
He resigned as chief minister in December 1964 to give way to Kuala Lumpur loyalist Tun Mustapha Datu Harun, and as compensation was given a federal ministership which he eventually lost in August 1965 when his party questioned Singapore's expulsion.
>> A stronger defendant of state rights, Sarawak's first Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan fiercely resisted Kuala Lumpur's intention to remove him through an orchestrated revolt of Sarawak Alliance state legislators.
When the Sarawak National Party (SNAP) leader was reinstated by the Borneo High Court and wanted to call an election to resolve the 1966 deadlock, the Federal Parliament passed a bill of Emergency Rule in Sarawak and amended the state constitution. This secured the desired regime-change and power eventually passed from the Christian Ibans to the Muslim Melanau who enjoyed more of Kuala Lumpur's confidence.
By 1966, the defiant new states were either expelled or tamed. Kelantan remained the only state ruled by the Opposition, just as it was before the birth of Malaysia. The post-1969 cooptation of opposition parties further eliminated all opposition state governments.
From 1973 to 1990, with the brief exception of Sabah in the mid-80s, there has only been one government in Malaysia - the same one - at federal, state and local levels. The ruling party was the state, as such. Many Malaysians cannot imagine any other scenario because they have never had any other experience.
Even after 1990, there have only been either one or two opposition state governments at a time. Ironically, the expansion of the Federation in 1963 has somewhat failed federalism in Malaysia.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, The Sun, Wednesday, July 25, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The defeat of the Malayan Union project (1946-1948) left two legacies for the later Federation of Malaysia. The first was Umno's dominance which has since prevented the emergence of liberal and plural democracy in Malaysia. The second was federalism.
Umno demanded for federalism because the Malayan Union was a unitary state which denied the nine Malay states their sovereignty and transformed them from protectorates, technically speaking, into de jure colonies. The 1948 entity of the Federation of Malaya borrowed ideas from other Anglophone federations like India, Australia and the United States.
Had it worked out well, the second legacy may have been the remedy for the first.
After all, in federalism, sovereignty and power are shared between national and sub-national entities. Such vertical divisions of power between the governments at different levels provide for check-and-balance, just like the horizontal separation of power between the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judiciary.
The logic is simple: with free and fair elections, it is unlikely that a single party can monopolise governments at all levels resulting in an effective, but undesirable, fusion of party and state.
How far this works, however, very much depends on the actual degree of decentralisation. Many nominally unitary states, including the UK, have transferred substantial amounts of power to lower level governments. While devolution to provincial governments aims to arrest separatist demands, decentralisation in jurisdictions like education, transportation, and the police allows responsiveness and adaptation to local needs.
In contrast, our federalism is highly centralised. Our federalism gives the federal government not only the most legislative and executive powers but also the most important sources of revenue. State governments are excluded from the revenues of income tax, export, import and excise duties, and they are also largely restricted from borrowing internationally. They have to depend on revenue from forests, lands, mines, petroleum, the entertainment industry, and finally, transfer payments from the central government.
Such restrictions however did not stop political pluralism from flourishing via federalism in the past. In 1959, the ratio of state government control between the Alliance and PAS was a healthy 9:2. PAS won 28 out of 30 state seats in Kelantan, which it ruled alone until 1973 and in coalition with the Alliance until 1977, shortly before losing it to Umno in the 1978 state elections.
Its hold on Terengganu in 1959 was much weaker with its capture of 13 out of 24 seats, while the Alliance held seven and Datuk Onn Jaafar's Parti Negara the remaining two. A no-confidence vote, aided by defection, ended the opposition state government there two years later.
The federal-state relation between the Alliance and PAS then was far from friendly. PAS accused Umno of not helping the Malays while Umno slammed PAS for administrative incompetence. The electorate in the PAS stronghold were threatened with no development and not unlike the tactics used in later years, the central government sometimes bypassed the state in delivering financial aid.
The establishment of Malaysia in 1963 worsened federal-state relations as the Kelantan state government was not consulted and was actually opposed to the favourable conditions granted to the new states of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak.
In the subsequent 1964 elections, during the period of konfrontasi with Indonesia, PAS was accused of being supported by Indonesia and hence, of disloyalty.
New states, worse conflicts
However, the conflicts between the Federal Government and the new states of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak soon dwarfed the antagonism between Kuala Lumpur and Kota Baru.
Within three years of Malaysia's birth, one of these defiant trio - Singapore - faced expulsion and another - Sarawak - had a regime change delivered via centrally-imposed emergency rule. Kelantan eventually had its emergency rule, too, in 1977.
One may understand better the intolerance of the Alliance federal government by studying the raison d'etre and context of the larger federation.
Tunku moved the idea of a Malaya-Singapore merger in 1961 to prevent the island from falling into the hand of the communists and becoming a Cuba in Malaya's backyard. This concern was shared by Singapore Chief Minister Lee Kuan Yew. The federation was also expected to benefit from Singapore's trading port.
Meanwhile, Sabah, Sarawak, and originally also Brunei, were brought into the picture for two reasons. Firstly, Borneo's native population, classified as bumiputra together with the Malays in Malaya, would help restore the "native-immigrant" ethnic balance after the addition of Singaporean Chinese and Indians. It is noteworthy, however, that in 1963, the Chinese and Indians made up 51% of newly-formed Malaysia's population while the bumiputra constituted only 47%.
The second reason for expanding the federation was that Britain was ready to relinquish her Borneo colonies, and Kuala Lumpur definitely preferred them to be "family" rather than just independent neighbours or part of Indonesia or the Philippines.
As Malaysia was very much a cleverly-calculated answer to different challenges, assertive states with their own mind would reduce, if not remove altogether, the expected payoff for the merger's chief architect, mover and beneficiary - Kuala Lumpur.
Hence, while state autonomy and rights were not seen as a threat to national cohesion and territorial integrity for Malaya in the late 1940s, it had become so for Malaysia in the 1960s. The sense of insecurity in Kuala Lumpur was perhaps also accelerated by the threats from Indonesia and the Philippines, both of which had territorial ambitions over the Borneo states.
>> Singapore was both the first challenger, and the first arena of rivalry. Politically the most sophisticated among the new Malaysian states, it had become self-governing by 1959. While the Malayan Alliance organised pro-Malaysian parties in Sarawak and Sabah into the Sarawak Alliance and the Sabah Alliance as sister parties, the same did not happen in Singapore.
When Singapore had its election in 1963, the Malayan Alliance organised a Singapore Alliance to contest against the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). All Alliance candidates met their Waterloo, including those of Singapore Umno, which lost to PAP's Malay candidates.
In retaliation, PAP contested 11 federal seats in Malaya in the 1964 elections. PAP attacked the MCA, which it blamed for the 1963 rivalry and accused of corruption and incompetence. Although winning only one seat in the peninsula, the Kuala Lumpur Parliament saw PAP parliamentarians from Singapore crossing swords with Alliance ministers over both the economic interests of Singapore and the rights of non-Malays nationwide.
Because its wish for a coalition government with Umno or the Alliance was rejected both before and after the elections, the PAP decided to build an alternative coalition, the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, with four other parties from Malaya and Sarawak.
PAP's plan of a Chinese-Bornean pact upset the Malay-Bornean coalition envisioned by Umno when Malaysia was designed.
Vowing to replace Umno's "Malay Malaysia" with a "Malaysian Malaysia", both the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew began to eye the positions of Umno and of Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Instead of detaining Lee and PAP leaders under the Internal Security Act, as some in his party demanded, Tunku eventually chose to expel Singapore altogether on Aug 9, 1965 to end the standoff.
>> In Sabah, Donald (later Fuad) Stephens, who led the Sabah Alliance government, fell out with Kuala Lumpur as he firmed up his position on the so-called "Twenty Points" - specific state rights in matters like immigration, religion, language and education that were granted to Sabah and Sarawak upon the formation of Malaysia.
He resigned as chief minister in December 1964 to give way to Kuala Lumpur loyalist Tun Mustapha Datu Harun, and as compensation was given a federal ministership which he eventually lost in August 1965 when his party questioned Singapore's expulsion.
>> A stronger defendant of state rights, Sarawak's first Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan fiercely resisted Kuala Lumpur's intention to remove him through an orchestrated revolt of Sarawak Alliance state legislators.
When the Sarawak National Party (SNAP) leader was reinstated by the Borneo High Court and wanted to call an election to resolve the 1966 deadlock, the Federal Parliament passed a bill of Emergency Rule in Sarawak and amended the state constitution. This secured the desired regime-change and power eventually passed from the Christian Ibans to the Muslim Melanau who enjoyed more of Kuala Lumpur's confidence.
By 1966, the defiant new states were either expelled or tamed. Kelantan remained the only state ruled by the Opposition, just as it was before the birth of Malaysia. The post-1969 cooptation of opposition parties further eliminated all opposition state governments.
From 1973 to 1990, with the brief exception of Sabah in the mid-80s, there has only been one government in Malaysia - the same one - at federal, state and local levels. The ruling party was the state, as such. Many Malaysians cannot imagine any other scenario because they have never had any other experience.
Even after 1990, there have only been either one or two opposition state governments at a time. Ironically, the expansion of the Federation in 1963 has somewhat failed federalism in Malaysia.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, The Sun, Wednesday, July 25, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Separation of Singapore
The Separation of Singapore
Singapore's separation from the Federation of Malaysia can be traced back to the long drawn out and acrimonious proceedings leading to the 1963 formation of Malaysia.
The seeds of discontent from the disagreements between the two governments sprouted into major crises during the short-lived merger between Singapore and the Federation. One of the toughest items was related to citizenship provisions that maintained a differentiated citizenship for the people of Singapore and of the Federation.
Political opponents were critical of Singapore leader Lee Kuan Yew because the Tunku was determined not to grant equal Malaysian citizenship rights to Singapore. Singaporeans who were Malaysian citizens could only vote in Singapore and not in Peninsular Malaysia and only for Singapore's 15 seats to the Malaysian Parliament. And only those born in the peninsula could stand for elections in Peninsular Malaysian elections.
Tunku was fearful of the political repercussions in the mainland if he granted the vote to an additional one million Singapore Chinese. Disputes over tax collection, the sharing of revenues and the common market, on a number of occasions, also threatened to derail the progress towards Malaysia.
Throughout the negotiations, which Lee described as a process of "attrition", both sides bargained hard and gave in little. In the end, a hastily arrived compromise was reached under pressure to have an agreement hammered out before the declaration of Malaysia.
Parallel to these arrangements, negotiations between the British and the Malayans went on more smoothly and marked the hasty process of decolonisation for Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah). They would lead the Borneo colonies to be handed over to the Malayans so that the Tunku would secure what the British were most interested in achieving: Singapore's merger with the Federation.
On his part, the Tunku, however, made sure he would secure the Borneo territories, which he was most anxious to have before Singapore was reluctantly thrust upon Malaya. Malaysia was inaugurated on Sept 16, 1963, without Brunei joining, amidst a number of major challenges, most notably hostilities from Indonesia, from various communist organisations, and from Moscow and Peking.
Already, at that particular moment of Singapore's entry into Malaysia, indications of future trouble between Singaporean and Malaysian leaders were evident. The Malaysia they had all worked hard to bring about was eventually rent with Singapore leaving Malaysia within two years in rather unhappy circumstances.
On Aug 31, 1963, Lee had defiantly declared Singapore's independence. He refused to wait and comply with the Malayan Parliament's decision to proclaim Malaysia on Sept 16 in conjunction with the release of a UN-commission of inquiry's findings on the wishes of the people of Sarawak and North Borneo. In concert with Lee, the two Borneo states followed suit.
These actions infuriated the Tunku's government, as they violated the terms of the Malaysia Agreement. Then, on Sept 21, five days after Malaysia's formation, Lee called for general elections in Singapore.
Lee's People's Action Party (PAP) won 37 seats, while 13 seats went to the left-wing Barisan Sosialis, and one seat to another opposition party. The Tunku's Alliance Party, however, failed to win any seats despite personally campaigning in the elections - a bitter blow to him.
The Tunku's participation upset Lee, but the Alliance's defeat was a greater blow to the Tunku who attacked Singapore Malays as "traitors" for not voting the Alliance and Umno. The Tunku did not even congratulate Lee on his electoral victory.
A reversal of fortunes for both parties, however, occurred in the April, 1964 elections in Peninsular Malaysia. For Lee, the election results were "a shock". The PAP fielded l1 candidates and won only one parliamentary seat, while the Alliance won 89 of the 104 seats contested, a landslide victory showing the Malaysian public was solidly behind the Tunku despite Indonesia's "confrontation" of Malaysia.
As the war of words ensued between the Federal and Singapore leaders, inter-ethnic tensions reared in Singapore, with Malays led by Umno leaders demanding special rights, job quotas and special occupancy in government-built housing projects, as in the peninsula.
In July 1964, racial riots broke out in Singapore. Initial media reports on the number of people killed varied between 22 and 93, while the number of injured was said to be more than 200 and the number of arrested more than 1,100. The statistical discrepancies arose as the government imposed censorship shortly after the riots.
It was reported that on the day of a PAP-sponsored Malay convention to discuss Malay issues, two people were killed, but the worst rioting began two days later. An incident during a procession of Malays celebrating the Prophet Muhammad's birthday triggered pitched battles between Malays and Chinese.
The Alliance government blamed pro-Indonesian Malay extremist gangs and pro-communist Chinese extremists for starting the riots, while the PAP blamed Malay "ultras" or extremists in Umno for the riots.
Although peace and calm returned, there was a second minor outbreak of racial violence in Singapore within two months, in the same areas in which eight people were reportedly killed and about 60 injured.
On May 8, 1965 Lee organised a big opposition get-together, comprising peninsula and Bornean parties to press for what he called a "Malaysian Malaysia" that sought equality for all races. "The special and legitimate interests of different communities must be secured and promoted within the framework of the collective rights, interests and responsibilities of all races," he declared.
It was a speech Lee made earlier before May 8 that alarmed Federal leaders, making them conclude that he was challenging the "special position" of the Malays. Umno leaders called for Lee's arrest and detention while his effigies were burnt at rallies.
It was largely at that moment that the Tunku felt Malaysia's security was deteriorating daily, and it was that which made him decide on Singapore's separation from Malaysia. On Aug 7, 1965, both parties signed the separation agreement. It was ratified at an emergency sitting of the Malaysian Parliament, which was hurriedly convened on Aug 9.
In Singapore, at a televised press conference on the same day, Lee said the separation was for him "a moment of anguish". He was so "emotionally affected" he broke down in tears, and the conference was terminated.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Wednesday, July 25, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Singapore's separation from the Federation of Malaysia can be traced back to the long drawn out and acrimonious proceedings leading to the 1963 formation of Malaysia.
The seeds of discontent from the disagreements between the two governments sprouted into major crises during the short-lived merger between Singapore and the Federation. One of the toughest items was related to citizenship provisions that maintained a differentiated citizenship for the people of Singapore and of the Federation.
Political opponents were critical of Singapore leader Lee Kuan Yew because the Tunku was determined not to grant equal Malaysian citizenship rights to Singapore. Singaporeans who were Malaysian citizens could only vote in Singapore and not in Peninsular Malaysia and only for Singapore's 15 seats to the Malaysian Parliament. And only those born in the peninsula could stand for elections in Peninsular Malaysian elections.
Tunku was fearful of the political repercussions in the mainland if he granted the vote to an additional one million Singapore Chinese. Disputes over tax collection, the sharing of revenues and the common market, on a number of occasions, also threatened to derail the progress towards Malaysia.
Throughout the negotiations, which Lee described as a process of "attrition", both sides bargained hard and gave in little. In the end, a hastily arrived compromise was reached under pressure to have an agreement hammered out before the declaration of Malaysia.
Parallel to these arrangements, negotiations between the British and the Malayans went on more smoothly and marked the hasty process of decolonisation for Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah). They would lead the Borneo colonies to be handed over to the Malayans so that the Tunku would secure what the British were most interested in achieving: Singapore's merger with the Federation.
On his part, the Tunku, however, made sure he would secure the Borneo territories, which he was most anxious to have before Singapore was reluctantly thrust upon Malaya. Malaysia was inaugurated on Sept 16, 1963, without Brunei joining, amidst a number of major challenges, most notably hostilities from Indonesia, from various communist organisations, and from Moscow and Peking.
Already, at that particular moment of Singapore's entry into Malaysia, indications of future trouble between Singaporean and Malaysian leaders were evident. The Malaysia they had all worked hard to bring about was eventually rent with Singapore leaving Malaysia within two years in rather unhappy circumstances.
On Aug 31, 1963, Lee had defiantly declared Singapore's independence. He refused to wait and comply with the Malayan Parliament's decision to proclaim Malaysia on Sept 16 in conjunction with the release of a UN-commission of inquiry's findings on the wishes of the people of Sarawak and North Borneo. In concert with Lee, the two Borneo states followed suit.
These actions infuriated the Tunku's government, as they violated the terms of the Malaysia Agreement. Then, on Sept 21, five days after Malaysia's formation, Lee called for general elections in Singapore.
Lee's People's Action Party (PAP) won 37 seats, while 13 seats went to the left-wing Barisan Sosialis, and one seat to another opposition party. The Tunku's Alliance Party, however, failed to win any seats despite personally campaigning in the elections - a bitter blow to him.
The Tunku's participation upset Lee, but the Alliance's defeat was a greater blow to the Tunku who attacked Singapore Malays as "traitors" for not voting the Alliance and Umno. The Tunku did not even congratulate Lee on his electoral victory.
A reversal of fortunes for both parties, however, occurred in the April, 1964 elections in Peninsular Malaysia. For Lee, the election results were "a shock". The PAP fielded l1 candidates and won only one parliamentary seat, while the Alliance won 89 of the 104 seats contested, a landslide victory showing the Malaysian public was solidly behind the Tunku despite Indonesia's "confrontation" of Malaysia.
As the war of words ensued between the Federal and Singapore leaders, inter-ethnic tensions reared in Singapore, with Malays led by Umno leaders demanding special rights, job quotas and special occupancy in government-built housing projects, as in the peninsula.
In July 1964, racial riots broke out in Singapore. Initial media reports on the number of people killed varied between 22 and 93, while the number of injured was said to be more than 200 and the number of arrested more than 1,100. The statistical discrepancies arose as the government imposed censorship shortly after the riots.
It was reported that on the day of a PAP-sponsored Malay convention to discuss Malay issues, two people were killed, but the worst rioting began two days later. An incident during a procession of Malays celebrating the Prophet Muhammad's birthday triggered pitched battles between Malays and Chinese.
The Alliance government blamed pro-Indonesian Malay extremist gangs and pro-communist Chinese extremists for starting the riots, while the PAP blamed Malay "ultras" or extremists in Umno for the riots.
Although peace and calm returned, there was a second minor outbreak of racial violence in Singapore within two months, in the same areas in which eight people were reportedly killed and about 60 injured.
On May 8, 1965 Lee organised a big opposition get-together, comprising peninsula and Bornean parties to press for what he called a "Malaysian Malaysia" that sought equality for all races. "The special and legitimate interests of different communities must be secured and promoted within the framework of the collective rights, interests and responsibilities of all races," he declared.
It was a speech Lee made earlier before May 8 that alarmed Federal leaders, making them conclude that he was challenging the "special position" of the Malays. Umno leaders called for Lee's arrest and detention while his effigies were burnt at rallies.
It was largely at that moment that the Tunku felt Malaysia's security was deteriorating daily, and it was that which made him decide on Singapore's separation from Malaysia. On Aug 7, 1965, both parties signed the separation agreement. It was ratified at an emergency sitting of the Malaysian Parliament, which was hurriedly convened on Aug 9.
In Singapore, at a televised press conference on the same day, Lee said the separation was for him "a moment of anguish". He was so "emotionally affected" he broke down in tears, and the conference was terminated.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Wednesday, July 25, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Brunei spurned Tunku’s Overtures
Brunei spurned Tunku’s Overtures
CONTRARY to most accounts about his enthusiasm for joining Malaysia, Brunei’s Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III had actually been consistently wary about the Malaysia proposal.
An earlier British proposal for a federation of North Borneo territories including Brunei had not appealed to him either as it would require Brunei’s surplus oil revenue for its development.
Brunei’s oil revenue was the main issue that kept the monarch guarded about joining any federation. Brunei sought to retain its oil revenues in perpetuity, including its rights over all future discoveries of oil within its territory.
The Tunku, however, was willing to allow only 10 years after which the Malaysian government would exercise the right of levy and collect taxes on oil.
Brunei had been a protectorate since 1888, and with a new treaty in September 1959, it attained internal self-government while its defence, internal security and external relations remained in British hands.
However, in the repeated overtures made to the Sultan, who ascended to the throne in 1950, to woo him to join Malaysia, negotiations became very protracted. Speculation was rife that he had an affinity with the royal houses of Malaya and that he might be interested in the prospect of being the next Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
At one stage of the negotiations, the Tunku complained that the Sultan had unfortunately been “evasive ... very evasive”. But other pressures worked against the Sultan joining Malaysia.
The powerful Brunei People’s Party (BRP) led by A.M. Azahari opposed the Tunku’s idea of Malaysia. In 1962, BRP won overwhelming public endorsement when it swept all the four district council elections, indicating that Malaysia was not well-received in Brunei.
In December, 1962, Azahari’s BRP launched an anti-Malaysia armed rebellion in Brunei, which spread through North Bornean towns and Sarawak’s border districts. The Sultan denounced the rebellion, and the British rushed in military reinforcements to crush the revolt.
However, the revolt strengthened the Sultan’s resolve not to join Malaysia.
Although he went through the motion of conferring with the Tunku on constitutional and financial matters related to Brunei’s entry into Malaysia, he decided to consolidate his hold over his kingdom, and did not give in to the Tunku’s overtures to join Malaysia.
Source: The Sun, Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
CONTRARY to most accounts about his enthusiasm for joining Malaysia, Brunei’s Sultan Omar Ali Saifuddin III had actually been consistently wary about the Malaysia proposal.
An earlier British proposal for a federation of North Borneo territories including Brunei had not appealed to him either as it would require Brunei’s surplus oil revenue for its development.
Brunei’s oil revenue was the main issue that kept the monarch guarded about joining any federation. Brunei sought to retain its oil revenues in perpetuity, including its rights over all future discoveries of oil within its territory.
The Tunku, however, was willing to allow only 10 years after which the Malaysian government would exercise the right of levy and collect taxes on oil.
Brunei had been a protectorate since 1888, and with a new treaty in September 1959, it attained internal self-government while its defence, internal security and external relations remained in British hands.
However, in the repeated overtures made to the Sultan, who ascended to the throne in 1950, to woo him to join Malaysia, negotiations became very protracted. Speculation was rife that he had an affinity with the royal houses of Malaya and that he might be interested in the prospect of being the next Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
At one stage of the negotiations, the Tunku complained that the Sultan had unfortunately been “evasive ... very evasive”. But other pressures worked against the Sultan joining Malaysia.
The powerful Brunei People’s Party (BRP) led by A.M. Azahari opposed the Tunku’s idea of Malaysia. In 1962, BRP won overwhelming public endorsement when it swept all the four district council elections, indicating that Malaysia was not well-received in Brunei.
In December, 1962, Azahari’s BRP launched an anti-Malaysia armed rebellion in Brunei, which spread through North Bornean towns and Sarawak’s border districts. The Sultan denounced the rebellion, and the British rushed in military reinforcements to crush the revolt.
However, the revolt strengthened the Sultan’s resolve not to join Malaysia.
Although he went through the motion of conferring with the Tunku on constitutional and financial matters related to Brunei’s entry into Malaysia, he decided to consolidate his hold over his kingdom, and did not give in to the Tunku’s overtures to join Malaysia.
Source: The Sun, Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Winning over Sabah and Sarawak
Winning over Sabah and Sarawak
INITIALLY the leaders of Sabah (then British North Borneo) and Sarawak were opposed to Malaysia or at best gave it a lukewarm welcome after it was proposed by Tunku Abdul Rahman on May 27, 1961 at the Foreign Correspondents Association in Singapore.
“Let us become independent first and then we will decide whether to join Malaysia or not,” said Tan Sri Ong Kee Hui, the Kuching mayor and leader of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP), formed in 1959.
Other prominent Sarawak leaders like Datu Abang Haji Openg – later the first local governor – and Abang Mustapha Abang Haji Abdul Gapor who are also members of the Council Negeri, considered the oldest legislature in the country, were unanimous in their opposition to the Tunku’s plan.
In Sabah, Tun Fuad Stephens (then Donald Stephens), a newspaper publisher, a member of the State Council and Huguan Siou (paramount leader) of the Kadazan/Dusun people, shared the same view as Ong. “We must not be seen as changing colonial masters,” was the response of the United National Kadazan Organisation (Unko), a party Fuad formed with Keningau
community leader GS Sundang. They contacted leaders from the other territories to see whether they should revive the idea of a federation of Borneo states of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei instead.
Many of the leaders believed that Malaysia’s formation was not really meant to benefit the people of the two territories but more to provide a solution to solve the problems of Britain, Malaya and Singapore.
Britain needed to withdraw from the East but it could not just up and go without ensuring its former colonies’ survival. Malaya wanted to increase the number of bumiputras to ensure that their numbers were bigger than the others. Singapore, threatened by communists, wanted security.
The leaders opposed the plan because they feared their people would be at the mercy of the commercially superior Chinese whose numbers would increase with Malaysia, and they also feared that they would eventually be sidelined by the more politically sophisticated Malays.
They also worried that their culture and polity would be gradually eroded. Thus, discussions were held on such issues as religion, education and finance where early assurances on these matters were made. Most of the discussions centred on the Sabah All-party 20-point memorandum and the Sarawak 18-point memorandum containing matters the two territories wanted to safeguard. But mostly the focus was on religion, constitutional safeguards, immigration, special position of the indigenous people, language, education and fiscal arrangements.
But even while discussions were still at the early stages, more and more leaders and their people gradually began to voice support for the plan.
The Malays were easily persuaded by Malayan Foreign Ministry permanent secretary Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie – the driving force behind the plan. And the resolve of those Malays who still resisted the plan finally caved in shortly before the Cobbold Commission arrived in the two territories to determine the peoples’ response to Tunku’s proposal.
Tun Mustapha Datu Harun, a Sabah State Council member and considered a leader of Sabah Malays, agreed wholeheartedly. Someone even described him as being the most “gung-ho” about Malaysia. A few months after the announcement, he formed Usno (United Sabah National Organisation).
In Sarawak, two lawyers, Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub and his nephew Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, not only favoured the idea but also promoted it. They quickly formed a party called Barjasa (Barisan Anak Jati Sarawak) which later merged with Panas (Parti Negara Sarawak) to form Parti Bumiputra.
Many Dayaks, led by their paramount chief, Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng, also came out in support of the idea. The chief was among the founders of Pesaka (Parti Pesaka Anak Sarawak) which later merged with Parti Bumiputra to form Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu or PBB, the current dominant party of the Sarawak Barisan Nasional.
Datuk James Wong Kim Ming, who later led the Dayak-based Sarawak National Party (SNAP) and was deputy chief minister several times, agreed “subject to favourable terms for Sabah and Sarawak.” In his book The Price of Loyalty, he said he had been told of the proposed federation in 1960 by British officials while he was in London.
Indeed, most leaders of the Borneo territories had heard of similar proposals for an association of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei being bandied about by officials in Britain and in Asia long before the Tunku’s announcement.
But Fuad Stephens and members of his delegation abandoned the idea of a federation of Borneo territories after meeting Tunku in Kuala Lumpur where they were royally entertained. Fuad Stephens was also talked out of it by Ghazali and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, a strong campaigner for Malaysia.
A member of Fuad’s delegation, Datuk Seri Ghani Gilong, told reporters on arrival at the airport in Kota Kinabalu (then Jesselton) “… bisuk pun boleh masuk Malaysia” (“... we can join Malaysia as early as tomorrow”).
Fuad Stephens, who with his friends had tried to popularise the term Kadazan in the 1950s to refer to his people who were “unglamorously” known as Dusun, now threw himself into campaigning for Malaysia.
He hoped the founding day of the new federation would fall on Sept 14, 1963, his 43rd birthday. It was not to be. It fell instead on the 40th birthday of Lee Kuan Yew, the man who convinced the Unko leader of the benefits of joining Malaysia.
Sundang, who was against Malaysia and who was also not enamoured by the term Kadazan, left Unko and formed United National Pasok Momogun Party or Pasok Momogun for short.
But all these parties later came together as the Sabah Alliance led by Mustapha and Fuad. On Merdeka Day, Mustapha took office as governor and Fuad as chief minister. And, as Fuad wanted, it was an independent Sabah that officially became part of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963.
In Sarawak, SNAP, led by Tan Sri Stephen Kalong Ningkan, finally agreed to join Malaysia but SUPP refused to be persuaded till the end. Said Ong: “We felt that any decision on North Borneo and Sarawak becoming part of a larger confederation should not be made until both these states were independent and directly responsible for their own destiny.”
The party held demonstrations when the Cobbold Commission arrived in Sarawak and told the commission why Sarawak should not be part of Malaysia. It said the same thing to the United Nations team that was sent to verify the peoples’ response to the new federation.
Such was its opposition to Malaysia that it even voted against the bill when the Sarawak Alliance government, led by SNAP’s Ningkan as chief minister, presented it in the inaugural meeting of the newly elected Council Negeri. The vote was 31 ayes to five SUPP nays.
Having succeeded in forming Malaysia, Tunku, now prime minister of a larger federation was magnanimous to SUPP. Since then, the Chinese-based party with Dayak and Malay members has played an important role in the country as well as the state.
It is interesting to note that as Malaysia celebrates 50 years of nationhood, fewer and fewer people seem to be asking about the safeguards that were put in place and whether they are still in place. Like in any strong federation, the tendency is for them to gradually fade away.
In Sabah’s case, it was successive state governments themselves that whittled away some of the safeguards, arguably, for better state and federal relations and stronger national unity.
Under Mustapha, for instance, the Sabah constitution was amended to make Islam the state religion. But he refused to sign over Sabah’s petroleum rights to the federal government and Petronas. Fuad, when he became chief minister as the head of the Berjaya government, however, did it just before he was killed in a plane crash.
Under Mustapha, the state government also changed the provisions for education and language through the extension of the Federal Education Act 1961 to the state, hence making the education department and its director directly responsible to the education ministry.
After Datuk Harris Salleh succeeded Fuad as Berjaya chief minister, he made Labuan a federal territory, and in the process, made it easy for other Malaysians to enter Sabah.
There is little to distinguish Sabah from the peninsula states now that Umno is leading the state Barisan Nasional.
Sarawak, on the other hand, seems to be fiercely autonomous even though it has given up some safeguards in the interest of unity and uniformity. But it is still the only state without a state religion.
Unlike Sabah, it was an independent state from 1842 and was recognised so by the US and Britain. It had its own flag and national anthem long before it became a British colony in 1946. The same flag was unfurled and the same anthem sung when the state became independent again.
That perhaps explains why the proud state – the only one still without the benefit of Umno’s guidance – is trying very hard to remain autonomous.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Visit Sponsor Link: How to Drive Traffic to Blog
INITIALLY the leaders of Sabah (then British North Borneo) and Sarawak were opposed to Malaysia or at best gave it a lukewarm welcome after it was proposed by Tunku Abdul Rahman on May 27, 1961 at the Foreign Correspondents Association in Singapore.
“Let us become independent first and then we will decide whether to join Malaysia or not,” said Tan Sri Ong Kee Hui, the Kuching mayor and leader of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP), formed in 1959.
Other prominent Sarawak leaders like Datu Abang Haji Openg – later the first local governor – and Abang Mustapha Abang Haji Abdul Gapor who are also members of the Council Negeri, considered the oldest legislature in the country, were unanimous in their opposition to the Tunku’s plan.
In Sabah, Tun Fuad Stephens (then Donald Stephens), a newspaper publisher, a member of the State Council and Huguan Siou (paramount leader) of the Kadazan/Dusun people, shared the same view as Ong. “We must not be seen as changing colonial masters,” was the response of the United National Kadazan Organisation (Unko), a party Fuad formed with Keningau
community leader GS Sundang. They contacted leaders from the other territories to see whether they should revive the idea of a federation of Borneo states of Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei instead.
Many of the leaders believed that Malaysia’s formation was not really meant to benefit the people of the two territories but more to provide a solution to solve the problems of Britain, Malaya and Singapore.
Britain needed to withdraw from the East but it could not just up and go without ensuring its former colonies’ survival. Malaya wanted to increase the number of bumiputras to ensure that their numbers were bigger than the others. Singapore, threatened by communists, wanted security.
The leaders opposed the plan because they feared their people would be at the mercy of the commercially superior Chinese whose numbers would increase with Malaysia, and they also feared that they would eventually be sidelined by the more politically sophisticated Malays.
They also worried that their culture and polity would be gradually eroded. Thus, discussions were held on such issues as religion, education and finance where early assurances on these matters were made. Most of the discussions centred on the Sabah All-party 20-point memorandum and the Sarawak 18-point memorandum containing matters the two territories wanted to safeguard. But mostly the focus was on religion, constitutional safeguards, immigration, special position of the indigenous people, language, education and fiscal arrangements.
But even while discussions were still at the early stages, more and more leaders and their people gradually began to voice support for the plan.
The Malays were easily persuaded by Malayan Foreign Ministry permanent secretary Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie – the driving force behind the plan. And the resolve of those Malays who still resisted the plan finally caved in shortly before the Cobbold Commission arrived in the two territories to determine the peoples’ response to Tunku’s proposal.
Tun Mustapha Datu Harun, a Sabah State Council member and considered a leader of Sabah Malays, agreed wholeheartedly. Someone even described him as being the most “gung-ho” about Malaysia. A few months after the announcement, he formed Usno (United Sabah National Organisation).
In Sarawak, two lawyers, Tun Abdul Rahman Yakub and his nephew Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud, not only favoured the idea but also promoted it. They quickly formed a party called Barjasa (Barisan Anak Jati Sarawak) which later merged with Panas (Parti Negara Sarawak) to form Parti Bumiputra.
Many Dayaks, led by their paramount chief, Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng, also came out in support of the idea. The chief was among the founders of Pesaka (Parti Pesaka Anak Sarawak) which later merged with Parti Bumiputra to form Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu or PBB, the current dominant party of the Sarawak Barisan Nasional.
Datuk James Wong Kim Ming, who later led the Dayak-based Sarawak National Party (SNAP) and was deputy chief minister several times, agreed “subject to favourable terms for Sabah and Sarawak.” In his book The Price of Loyalty, he said he had been told of the proposed federation in 1960 by British officials while he was in London.
Indeed, most leaders of the Borneo territories had heard of similar proposals for an association of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei being bandied about by officials in Britain and in Asia long before the Tunku’s announcement.
But Fuad Stephens and members of his delegation abandoned the idea of a federation of Borneo territories after meeting Tunku in Kuala Lumpur where they were royally entertained. Fuad Stephens was also talked out of it by Ghazali and Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, a strong campaigner for Malaysia.
A member of Fuad’s delegation, Datuk Seri Ghani Gilong, told reporters on arrival at the airport in Kota Kinabalu (then Jesselton) “… bisuk pun boleh masuk Malaysia” (“... we can join Malaysia as early as tomorrow”).
Fuad Stephens, who with his friends had tried to popularise the term Kadazan in the 1950s to refer to his people who were “unglamorously” known as Dusun, now threw himself into campaigning for Malaysia.
He hoped the founding day of the new federation would fall on Sept 14, 1963, his 43rd birthday. It was not to be. It fell instead on the 40th birthday of Lee Kuan Yew, the man who convinced the Unko leader of the benefits of joining Malaysia.
Sundang, who was against Malaysia and who was also not enamoured by the term Kadazan, left Unko and formed United National Pasok Momogun Party or Pasok Momogun for short.
But all these parties later came together as the Sabah Alliance led by Mustapha and Fuad. On Merdeka Day, Mustapha took office as governor and Fuad as chief minister. And, as Fuad wanted, it was an independent Sabah that officially became part of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963.
In Sarawak, SNAP, led by Tan Sri Stephen Kalong Ningkan, finally agreed to join Malaysia but SUPP refused to be persuaded till the end. Said Ong: “We felt that any decision on North Borneo and Sarawak becoming part of a larger confederation should not be made until both these states were independent and directly responsible for their own destiny.”
The party held demonstrations when the Cobbold Commission arrived in Sarawak and told the commission why Sarawak should not be part of Malaysia. It said the same thing to the United Nations team that was sent to verify the peoples’ response to the new federation.
Such was its opposition to Malaysia that it even voted against the bill when the Sarawak Alliance government, led by SNAP’s Ningkan as chief minister, presented it in the inaugural meeting of the newly elected Council Negeri. The vote was 31 ayes to five SUPP nays.
Having succeeded in forming Malaysia, Tunku, now prime minister of a larger federation was magnanimous to SUPP. Since then, the Chinese-based party with Dayak and Malay members has played an important role in the country as well as the state.
It is interesting to note that as Malaysia celebrates 50 years of nationhood, fewer and fewer people seem to be asking about the safeguards that were put in place and whether they are still in place. Like in any strong federation, the tendency is for them to gradually fade away.
In Sabah’s case, it was successive state governments themselves that whittled away some of the safeguards, arguably, for better state and federal relations and stronger national unity.
Under Mustapha, for instance, the Sabah constitution was amended to make Islam the state religion. But he refused to sign over Sabah’s petroleum rights to the federal government and Petronas. Fuad, when he became chief minister as the head of the Berjaya government, however, did it just before he was killed in a plane crash.
Under Mustapha, the state government also changed the provisions for education and language through the extension of the Federal Education Act 1961 to the state, hence making the education department and its director directly responsible to the education ministry.
After Datuk Harris Salleh succeeded Fuad as Berjaya chief minister, he made Labuan a federal territory, and in the process, made it easy for other Malaysians to enter Sabah.
There is little to distinguish Sabah from the peninsula states now that Umno is leading the state Barisan Nasional.
Sarawak, on the other hand, seems to be fiercely autonomous even though it has given up some safeguards in the interest of unity and uniformity. But it is still the only state without a state religion.
Unlike Sabah, it was an independent state from 1842 and was recognised so by the US and Britain. It had its own flag and national anthem long before it became a British colony in 1946. The same flag was unfurled and the same anthem sung when the state became independent again.
That perhaps explains why the proud state – the only one still without the benefit of Umno’s guidance – is trying very hard to remain autonomous.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Visit Sponsor Link: How to Drive Traffic to Blog
The Reasons for Malaysia’s Formation
The Reasons for Malaysia’s Formation
TUNKU Abdul Rahman’s claims to greatness rest not only on his being the founding father of Malaya’s independence, but also on his being the architect of Malaysia comprising Malaya (a federation of 11 states), Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (later re-named Sabah).
Malaysia was inaugurated on Sept 16, 1963. It united 14 states comprising about nine million people. However, two years later, Singapore left the federation. “Malaysia Day” or “Independence Day” is celebrated on Aug 31 and not on Sept 16 because Malaysia’s inauguration was initially set for Aug 31, 1963, the anniversary of the Federation of Malaya’s independence.
But it was postponed to coincide with the announcement of the findings of a United Nations-conducted survey on whether the peoples of Sarawak and North Borneo wished to join Malaysia. The results were positive.
There are several reasons for Malaysia’s formation. But the most important from the Tunku’s viewpoint was ethnic composition. The Tunku dropped his opposition to the proposed merger with predominantly Chinese Singapore only after the British assured him that the three Borneo territories of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo could join Malaysia.
In the 1957 Census for Malaya, the racial balance was fairly equal between the Malays and the “non-Malays”. But in the enlarged federation of Malaysia, the Malays and “natives” of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo would slightly outnumber the Chinese, Indians and “other non-Malays”.
In his memoirs, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew said that to the Tunku, “the Federation was anxious not to upset its own racial balance”, and the addition of 1.3 million Chinese from the island “would confuse Malayans and ruin the calm atmosphere there”.
Lee, however, needed the merger because the communists were creating problems for his ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in Singapore, and he wanted the Tunku to take over responsibility for the island’s security. Lee did not want independence from Britain because “an independent Singapore meant a communist Singapore”.
Likewise, the British was also not keen to grant Singapore independence for fear of the communists’ growing power on the island. But the colonial government was willing to allow the Tunku to take overall responsibility for Singapore’s security within Malaysia.
These three parties, for their own reasons, found it beneficial to negotiate and work out the terms for Malaysia’s formation.
Critics of the Malaysia Plan, including Indonesia’s President Sukarno, called it a “neo-colonial plot”, arguing it was part of Britain’s “Grand Design” to decolonise the region but to exert influence by still having military bases and influence in these territories.
The “Grand Design” notwithstanding, the Tunku’s role was crucial when on May 27, 1961, at a Foreign Correspondents Association’s luncheon meeting in Singapore, he made the historic announcement of the possibility of bringing the territories of Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak, and Brunei and the Federation of Malaya “closer together in political and economic cooperation”.
Besides Indonesia, the Philippines had opposed the concept of Malaysia from the outset, owing to its unresolved claim over North Borneo. The Tunku would later attempt to mollify both his neighbours by suggesting, in a Manila summit, the formation of a super-federation known as “Ma-phil-indo”, incorporating Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia, but they were not entirely assuaged.
What followed from the Tunku’s 1961 announcement were complicated negotiations of the terms by which Singapore would merge with the Malayan federation as well as the intricate manoeuvrings by which the Borneo territories were cajoled into joining Malaysia.
Initially, the political and community leaders of Sarawak and North Borneo were opposed to Malaysia. They preferred to seek independence first in each of their respective territories, and then form a federation of North Borneo states. But many were eventually won over by the convincing arguments of Malayan and Singaporean leaders as to the benefits of Malaysia.
In the wake of Tunku’s proposal, however, communal-based parties emerged, each seeking to protect the interests of their respective communities.
Later in 1961, the Tunku announced that Singapore would be given autonomy in education and labour, and both the Federation and Singapore would work out common market and other financial arrangements.
But North Borneo and Sarawak would be accorded special powers in immigration, customs, Borneo-nisation of the civil service (i.e. guarantees on the indigenous composition of the civil service), and control of state franchise rights.
Unlike Singapore, which was allotted 15 seats in the Malaysian Parliament, Sarawak and North Borneo, despite their smaller populations, were given over-representation in Parliament: 24 seats for North Borneo, and 16 for Sarawak. The Malaysia that came into being on Sept 16, 1963 was a federation of many parts; a remarkable act of political consolidation.
But the political, economic and ethnic differences that the new state had to pull together and accommodate posed fundamental challenges to its aspirations to become a nation state.
Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
TUNKU Abdul Rahman’s claims to greatness rest not only on his being the founding father of Malaya’s independence, but also on his being the architect of Malaysia comprising Malaya (a federation of 11 states), Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (later re-named Sabah).
Malaysia was inaugurated on Sept 16, 1963. It united 14 states comprising about nine million people. However, two years later, Singapore left the federation. “Malaysia Day” or “Independence Day” is celebrated on Aug 31 and not on Sept 16 because Malaysia’s inauguration was initially set for Aug 31, 1963, the anniversary of the Federation of Malaya’s independence.
But it was postponed to coincide with the announcement of the findings of a United Nations-conducted survey on whether the peoples of Sarawak and North Borneo wished to join Malaysia. The results were positive.
There are several reasons for Malaysia’s formation. But the most important from the Tunku’s viewpoint was ethnic composition. The Tunku dropped his opposition to the proposed merger with predominantly Chinese Singapore only after the British assured him that the three Borneo territories of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo could join Malaysia.
In the 1957 Census for Malaya, the racial balance was fairly equal between the Malays and the “non-Malays”. But in the enlarged federation of Malaysia, the Malays and “natives” of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo would slightly outnumber the Chinese, Indians and “other non-Malays”.
In his memoirs, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew said that to the Tunku, “the Federation was anxious not to upset its own racial balance”, and the addition of 1.3 million Chinese from the island “would confuse Malayans and ruin the calm atmosphere there”.
Lee, however, needed the merger because the communists were creating problems for his ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) in Singapore, and he wanted the Tunku to take over responsibility for the island’s security. Lee did not want independence from Britain because “an independent Singapore meant a communist Singapore”.
Likewise, the British was also not keen to grant Singapore independence for fear of the communists’ growing power on the island. But the colonial government was willing to allow the Tunku to take overall responsibility for Singapore’s security within Malaysia.
These three parties, for their own reasons, found it beneficial to negotiate and work out the terms for Malaysia’s formation.
Critics of the Malaysia Plan, including Indonesia’s President Sukarno, called it a “neo-colonial plot”, arguing it was part of Britain’s “Grand Design” to decolonise the region but to exert influence by still having military bases and influence in these territories.
The “Grand Design” notwithstanding, the Tunku’s role was crucial when on May 27, 1961, at a Foreign Correspondents Association’s luncheon meeting in Singapore, he made the historic announcement of the possibility of bringing the territories of Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak, and Brunei and the Federation of Malaya “closer together in political and economic cooperation”.
Besides Indonesia, the Philippines had opposed the concept of Malaysia from the outset, owing to its unresolved claim over North Borneo. The Tunku would later attempt to mollify both his neighbours by suggesting, in a Manila summit, the formation of a super-federation known as “Ma-phil-indo”, incorporating Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia, but they were not entirely assuaged.
What followed from the Tunku’s 1961 announcement were complicated negotiations of the terms by which Singapore would merge with the Malayan federation as well as the intricate manoeuvrings by which the Borneo territories were cajoled into joining Malaysia.
Initially, the political and community leaders of Sarawak and North Borneo were opposed to Malaysia. They preferred to seek independence first in each of their respective territories, and then form a federation of North Borneo states. But many were eventually won over by the convincing arguments of Malayan and Singaporean leaders as to the benefits of Malaysia.
In the wake of Tunku’s proposal, however, communal-based parties emerged, each seeking to protect the interests of their respective communities.
Later in 1961, the Tunku announced that Singapore would be given autonomy in education and labour, and both the Federation and Singapore would work out common market and other financial arrangements.
But North Borneo and Sarawak would be accorded special powers in immigration, customs, Borneo-nisation of the civil service (i.e. guarantees on the indigenous composition of the civil service), and control of state franchise rights.
Unlike Singapore, which was allotted 15 seats in the Malaysian Parliament, Sarawak and North Borneo, despite their smaller populations, were given over-representation in Parliament: 24 seats for North Borneo, and 16 for Sarawak. The Malaysia that came into being on Sept 16, 1963 was a federation of many parts; a remarkable act of political consolidation.
But the political, economic and ethnic differences that the new state had to pull together and accommodate posed fundamental challenges to its aspirations to become a nation state.
Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Memali Incident
The Memali Incident
THE Memali incident in Kampung Memali in Kedah’s Baling district happened at the height of Islamic resurgence in the 1980s. The Nov 19, 1985 incident eventually took 18 lives, including that of Ibrahim Mahmood or Man Libya – the leader of a militant Islamic group – and four police personnel.
In a Feb 25, 1986 White Paper, then Home Minister Datuk Musa Hitam, gave a detailed explanation of what happened, in order to expose “the activities of certain elements, groups and individuals who were abusing and exploiting Islam and the Islamic resurgence for personal or political ends”.
On returning to Malaysia after studying in Cairo and Tripoli in Libya, Ibrahim worked as a pendakwah (missionary) financed by the Libyan government, while attached to the Religious Division in the Prime Minister’s Department. But he soon resigned from his post to be active in politics. He joined PAS and stood for elections in 1978 and 1982, but lost on both occasions.
The White Paper alleges that after this, Ibrahim began zealously explaining and instilling the spirit of jihad (holy war) and syahid (martyrdom) among party members and supporters.
At the same time, says the White Paper, PAS leaders were also urging members to dub others as infidels and to boycott fellow Muslims in Umno whom they branded as kafir (infidels). They refused to pray in the same mosque with Umno members.
Ibrahim’s “Islamic extremism” within the Memali community eventually alarmed the authorities, who felt his activities should be nipped. The first police operation to arrest and detain Ibrahim under the Internal Security Act took place at 1am on Sept 2, 1984 at his house in Kampung Memali. It was aborted because of strong opposition from 100 Ibrahim followers. Ibrahim stayed behind locked doors and refused to come out when asked to give himself up.
Ibrahim soon went into hiding for about a month-and-a half, and then returned to his house. His supporters set up a system around his house to protect him.
The police made five more attempts throughout 1984 and up to Nov 10, 1985 to persuade Ibrahim to give up peacefully, but to no avail. Events reached a climax on Nov 19, 1985 when a total of 576 police personnel were deployed. The group that moved in from Baling was obstructed by women and children armed with sharpened bamboos and wooden sticks.
When the police approached Ibrahim’s house, they were suddenly shot at with firearms, resulting in an inspector and a sergeant being killed on the spot. A constable was seriously wounded and died afterwards. The police then used an armoured car to break down the gate of Ibrahim’s house.
“To defend themselves and to thwart the attacks, the police ultimately had to use firearms,” says the White Paper. “Eight of the attackers, including Ibrahim Mahmood, were killed in the yard of the house. Four other supporters of Ibrahim Mahmood were killed by the gate of his house. Another was killed at the back of Ibrahim’s house when he and several of his followers attempted to attack the police personnel surrounding the house.”
PAS, in a statement read out in Parliament, dissociated itself from the incident, saying Ibrahim acted on his own.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Heng, The Sun, Monday, July 23, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
THE Memali incident in Kampung Memali in Kedah’s Baling district happened at the height of Islamic resurgence in the 1980s. The Nov 19, 1985 incident eventually took 18 lives, including that of Ibrahim Mahmood or Man Libya – the leader of a militant Islamic group – and four police personnel.
In a Feb 25, 1986 White Paper, then Home Minister Datuk Musa Hitam, gave a detailed explanation of what happened, in order to expose “the activities of certain elements, groups and individuals who were abusing and exploiting Islam and the Islamic resurgence for personal or political ends”.
On returning to Malaysia after studying in Cairo and Tripoli in Libya, Ibrahim worked as a pendakwah (missionary) financed by the Libyan government, while attached to the Religious Division in the Prime Minister’s Department. But he soon resigned from his post to be active in politics. He joined PAS and stood for elections in 1978 and 1982, but lost on both occasions.
The White Paper alleges that after this, Ibrahim began zealously explaining and instilling the spirit of jihad (holy war) and syahid (martyrdom) among party members and supporters.
At the same time, says the White Paper, PAS leaders were also urging members to dub others as infidels and to boycott fellow Muslims in Umno whom they branded as kafir (infidels). They refused to pray in the same mosque with Umno members.
Ibrahim’s “Islamic extremism” within the Memali community eventually alarmed the authorities, who felt his activities should be nipped. The first police operation to arrest and detain Ibrahim under the Internal Security Act took place at 1am on Sept 2, 1984 at his house in Kampung Memali. It was aborted because of strong opposition from 100 Ibrahim followers. Ibrahim stayed behind locked doors and refused to come out when asked to give himself up.
Ibrahim soon went into hiding for about a month-and-a half, and then returned to his house. His supporters set up a system around his house to protect him.
The police made five more attempts throughout 1984 and up to Nov 10, 1985 to persuade Ibrahim to give up peacefully, but to no avail. Events reached a climax on Nov 19, 1985 when a total of 576 police personnel were deployed. The group that moved in from Baling was obstructed by women and children armed with sharpened bamboos and wooden sticks.
When the police approached Ibrahim’s house, they were suddenly shot at with firearms, resulting in an inspector and a sergeant being killed on the spot. A constable was seriously wounded and died afterwards. The police then used an armoured car to break down the gate of Ibrahim’s house.
“To defend themselves and to thwart the attacks, the police ultimately had to use firearms,” says the White Paper. “Eight of the attackers, including Ibrahim Mahmood, were killed in the yard of the house. Four other supporters of Ibrahim Mahmood were killed by the gate of his house. Another was killed at the back of Ibrahim’s house when he and several of his followers attempted to attack the police personnel surrounding the house.”
PAS, in a statement read out in Parliament, dissociated itself from the incident, saying Ibrahim acted on his own.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Heng, The Sun, Monday, July 23, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The CPM’s Controversial Role
The CPM’s Controversial Role
SINCE the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM)’s armed struggle ended in 1989, public controversy has arisen over the party’s armed struggle and its contribution to the achievement of Malaya’s independence.
In 2003, CPM leader Chin Peng published his memoirs, My Side of History, in which he gives an insider’s account of why and how the communist insurgency failed. His application to return to Malaysia to launch his book was rejected by the Home Ministry. His appeal against this ban is pending before the High Court.
Born Ong Boon Hua in October, 1924 in Sitiawan, Perak, Chin Peng joined the clandestine CPM at 15 and became its secretary-general, its highest-ranking member, at 23.
He adopted the alias “Chin Peng” as all secretary cell members had to conceal their real identity from the police. During the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960), the British offered a bounty of $250,000 (Straits dollars) for his head.
In his memoirs, Chin Peng claims he was always a nationalist, saying the party’s armed struggle was to free Malaya from British rule and obtain independence. But, he takes responsibility for the thousands of lives lost and sacrificed in the struggle. This was inevitable, he says, because it was a “war” for national independence.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Monday, July 23, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
SINCE the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM)’s armed struggle ended in 1989, public controversy has arisen over the party’s armed struggle and its contribution to the achievement of Malaya’s independence.
In 2003, CPM leader Chin Peng published his memoirs, My Side of History, in which he gives an insider’s account of why and how the communist insurgency failed. His application to return to Malaysia to launch his book was rejected by the Home Ministry. His appeal against this ban is pending before the High Court.
Born Ong Boon Hua in October, 1924 in Sitiawan, Perak, Chin Peng joined the clandestine CPM at 15 and became its secretary-general, its highest-ranking member, at 23.
He adopted the alias “Chin Peng” as all secretary cell members had to conceal their real identity from the police. During the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960), the British offered a bounty of $250,000 (Straits dollars) for his head.
In his memoirs, Chin Peng claims he was always a nationalist, saying the party’s armed struggle was to free Malaya from British rule and obtain independence. But, he takes responsibility for the thousands of lives lost and sacrificed in the struggle. This was inevitable, he says, because it was a “war” for national independence.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Monday, July 23, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Kelantan Emergency of December 1977
Kelantan Emergency of December 1977
WHEN PAS agreed to join the Alliance government in 1972, it was acknowledged that Kelantan would stay a PAS stronghold, but Umno would have a share in the state’s PAS-dominated government.
The terms of agreement were reached in September 1972 between Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and the PAS leader, Datuk Mohamed Asri (see Gordon P. Means, Malaysian Politics, 1976, p.406).
Strong opposition within PAS prolonged the negotiations, but the terms of coalition were finally approved by the PAS annual congress in January 1973 by a vote of 190 to 94 with 19 abstentions. PAS then joined the coalition government, with Asri as land development minister, while a number of PAS leaders were appointed to lesser federal posts.
The Barisan Nasional (BN), which replaced the Alliance, was formally registered in 1974. However, Umno’s promise of non-interference in Kelantan was not observed for long.
Participation in the BN coalition appeared to benefit PAS leaders more at the federal than at the state level as Umno-PAS rivalries intensified in Kelantan, leading eventually to PAS’s decision to remove the incumbent Mentri Besar Mohamed Nasir for defying party instructions in 1977.
Nasir appeared to be more a recalcitrant than an Umno convert, but his defiance towards the PAS leadership gave Umno great satisfaction. PAS called for his resignation, but he refused, and presented himself as the champion of an honest and clean government against corrupt and self-serving politicians.
A “no-confidence” motion was tabled in the Kelantan state assembly and carried by 20 PAS votes after 13 Umno and one MCA assembly members walked out in protest.
A legal impasse followed when Mohamed Nasir called for the dissolution of the state assembly. His supporters demonstrated in the streets, and violence and looting erupted. This led the Federal government to ask the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare an Emergency and a curfew in the state capital in 1977.
However, before the emergency was declared, Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn – who had succeeded Tun Razak upon his death in 1976 – and Umno ministers attempted to negotiate a settlement with PAS federal leaders.
After several proposals were rejected, Hussein said he would impose federal rule in Kelantan for “public security”.
An emergency bill for Kelantan, pending a new state election, was rushed through Parliament and passed with 118 votes in support, and 18 against. Of the 14 PAS members, 12 voted against while all six DAP members opposed the motion.
PAS members who held office in the BN government resigned but said they would remain in the BN. However, the BN Council decided to expel all members who had voted against the Kelantan Emergency Bill.
In the March 1978 state elections, PAS lost to Umno which then formed the state government. Since the 1977 split, PAS has remained in the Opposition and all attempts to get it to rejoin the BN have failed.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Monday, July 23,2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
WHEN PAS agreed to join the Alliance government in 1972, it was acknowledged that Kelantan would stay a PAS stronghold, but Umno would have a share in the state’s PAS-dominated government.
The terms of agreement were reached in September 1972 between Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and the PAS leader, Datuk Mohamed Asri (see Gordon P. Means, Malaysian Politics, 1976, p.406).
Strong opposition within PAS prolonged the negotiations, but the terms of coalition were finally approved by the PAS annual congress in January 1973 by a vote of 190 to 94 with 19 abstentions. PAS then joined the coalition government, with Asri as land development minister, while a number of PAS leaders were appointed to lesser federal posts.
The Barisan Nasional (BN), which replaced the Alliance, was formally registered in 1974. However, Umno’s promise of non-interference in Kelantan was not observed for long.
Participation in the BN coalition appeared to benefit PAS leaders more at the federal than at the state level as Umno-PAS rivalries intensified in Kelantan, leading eventually to PAS’s decision to remove the incumbent Mentri Besar Mohamed Nasir for defying party instructions in 1977.
Nasir appeared to be more a recalcitrant than an Umno convert, but his defiance towards the PAS leadership gave Umno great satisfaction. PAS called for his resignation, but he refused, and presented himself as the champion of an honest and clean government against corrupt and self-serving politicians.
A “no-confidence” motion was tabled in the Kelantan state assembly and carried by 20 PAS votes after 13 Umno and one MCA assembly members walked out in protest.
A legal impasse followed when Mohamed Nasir called for the dissolution of the state assembly. His supporters demonstrated in the streets, and violence and looting erupted. This led the Federal government to ask the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to declare an Emergency and a curfew in the state capital in 1977.
However, before the emergency was declared, Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn – who had succeeded Tun Razak upon his death in 1976 – and Umno ministers attempted to negotiate a settlement with PAS federal leaders.
After several proposals were rejected, Hussein said he would impose federal rule in Kelantan for “public security”.
An emergency bill for Kelantan, pending a new state election, was rushed through Parliament and passed with 118 votes in support, and 18 against. Of the 14 PAS members, 12 voted against while all six DAP members opposed the motion.
PAS members who held office in the BN government resigned but said they would remain in the BN. However, the BN Council decided to expel all members who had voted against the Kelantan Emergency Bill.
In the March 1978 state elections, PAS lost to Umno which then formed the state government. Since the 1977 split, PAS has remained in the Opposition and all attempts to get it to rejoin the BN have failed.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Monday, July 23,2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Trials and Tribulations
Trials and Tribulations
THE peoples of Malaysia went through several trials and tribulations from World War II. Although Malaya achieved independence on Aug 31, 1957, North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak did not obtain self-government and independence until their territories joined with independent Malaya and Singapore to form Malaysia in 1963. Singapore left in 1965.
>> The first major challenge was the Japanese Occupation which lasted three-and-a-half years from December, 1941 to August, 1945. The occupation was traumatic and brutal, and is remembered as a “dark blot” in the country’s history.
For many Malaysians who lived through these terrible times, the occupation was very divisive. When the British returned to Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak after Japan’s defeat in World War II, the colonial administration did not view locals’ collaboration with the Japanese in a favourable light.
Many who collaborated were punished, including civil servants, whose wartime careers would result in them not being reinstated. Since those who collaborated were stigmatised, people did not dare to own up to it until after Independence when they were free to talk about why they had collaborated.
Officially, the Malaysian government has attempted to exorcise the ghosts of World War II, and has tended to look at the war’s more positive rather than negative aspects.
National museums and Malaysian history textbooks tend to play down the wartime inter-racial clashes between the Chinese and the Malays, Japanese atrocities and massacres of the Chinese, the role of the Chinese-dominated guerilla resistance movement, and the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army or MPAJA, while highlighting how the occupation inspired anti-colonialism and awakened Malay nationalism.
>> The communist insurgency, which began in 1948 in Malaya, marked another period of trial and tribulation. The Malayan Emergency (1948-60) saw widespread violence, unrest and terrorism, although the communist guerillas claimed that their armed struggle was to free Malaya from British rule.
To combat the communist threat, the British administration introduced emergency laws, which infringed fundamental human rights, imposed restrictions on the media, and allowed for arrests and indefinite detention without trial.
However, the British realised that the battle against the communists could be won only by granting independence to Malaya and handing over power to non-communist nationalist elites. Consequently, it held general elections in 1955 in which the Umno-MCA-MIC Alliance won 51 of the 52 contested seats in the Federal Legislative Council.
The Alliance had campaigned on a platform of amnesty for the communists to persuade them to lay down their arms. To discuss the terms of amnesty, Alliance leader Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was then Malaya’s Chief Minister, met with Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leaders in Baling, Kedah, on Dec 28 and 29, 1955.
The Tunku was accompanied by Singapore Chief Minister David Marshall and MCA chief Tun Tan Cheng Lock, while the communists were led by CPM secretary-general Chin Peng, and his party colleagues, Chen Tien and Rashid Mydin.
The talks, however, broke down as the Tunku rejected the CPM’s demand for recognition in exchange for ending its armed struggle. The Tunku also turned down its second demand that there be no police screening of CPM members who turned themselves in to the authorities.
However, Chin Peng made a startling concession at the talks by saying that the communists would lay down their arms if the Alliance government had self-determination in internal security and national defence. To which the Tunku replied: “Is that a promise? When I come back from England (from the independence talks with the British government) that is the thing that I am bringing back with me.”
Great publicity was given to this “concession” by Chin Peng, and it strengthened the Tunku’s hand in the negotiations he held with the British in January, 1956.
In his retirement, Tunku, in his memoirs Lest We Forget (1983), belatedly acknowledged the communists’ role in securing Malaya’s independence:
“Just as Indonesia was fighting a bloody battle, so were the communists of Malaya, who too fought for independence. With the difference that the communists of Malaya were not the indigenous people of this country and they were fighting to set up a communist regime, which the believers in the faith of Islam could not support nor could those orthodox people, who believed in freedom and democracy. So the struggle for the independence of this country was carried out by the communists alone and they fought a subversive as well as a shooting war … and would have gone on had the British government not yielded to our demand for a general election as a step towards independence.”
However, the current administration has been reluctant to accord the communists any recognition because it fought an armed insurgency, for at least 35 years, that ended only in 1989.
>> The period of konfrontasi launched by Indonesia under President Sukarno against the formation of Malaysia was another pivotal moment in our nation’s history.
In 1961, independent Malaya, Singapore and the British formulated a merger of Singapore and Malaya, with the eventual incorporation of the Borneo territories of Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah) into a new Federation of Malaysia.
Jakarta, however, was not happy with this development, seeing the Malaysian federation as a “neo-colonial plot” since British bases would remain.
The strongest opposition came from Brunei. Although Brunei’s monarch showed some interest in joining Malaysia, in December of 1962, the Brunei People’s Party (Partai Raayat) launched a short-lived rebellion against Malaysia, in favour of an independent state of North Kalimantan comprising Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo.
On Sept 25 , 1963 – nine days after Malaysia was formed – Sukarno announced that he would ganyang Malaysia (crush Malaysia) after both countries had severed diplomatic ties.
A small-scale border war erupted in the jungles of Kalimantan, in which Malaysian and British forces engaged with the Indonesian Army. In August and September of 1964, small-scale Indonesian incursions into Peninsular Malaysia took place, but the infiltrators were all rounded up.
When Singapore announced its separation from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965, Sukarno viewed this as confirmation of the confrontation’s righteousness. However, there was already a split within the Indonesian Army, with many top generals inclined to end the confrontation.
Indonesia’s konfrontasi ended after only two years following an ill-planned coup attempt in Jakarta from Sept 30 to Oct 1 1965, in which the Indonesian Communist Party was implicated. Events soon led to the rise of General Suharto who toppled Sukarno, recognised Malaysia and restored diplomatic relations with Malaysia.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Monday, July 23, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
THE peoples of Malaysia went through several trials and tribulations from World War II. Although Malaya achieved independence on Aug 31, 1957, North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak did not obtain self-government and independence until their territories joined with independent Malaya and Singapore to form Malaysia in 1963. Singapore left in 1965.
>> The first major challenge was the Japanese Occupation which lasted three-and-a-half years from December, 1941 to August, 1945. The occupation was traumatic and brutal, and is remembered as a “dark blot” in the country’s history.
For many Malaysians who lived through these terrible times, the occupation was very divisive. When the British returned to Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak after Japan’s defeat in World War II, the colonial administration did not view locals’ collaboration with the Japanese in a favourable light.
Many who collaborated were punished, including civil servants, whose wartime careers would result in them not being reinstated. Since those who collaborated were stigmatised, people did not dare to own up to it until after Independence when they were free to talk about why they had collaborated.
Officially, the Malaysian government has attempted to exorcise the ghosts of World War II, and has tended to look at the war’s more positive rather than negative aspects.
National museums and Malaysian history textbooks tend to play down the wartime inter-racial clashes between the Chinese and the Malays, Japanese atrocities and massacres of the Chinese, the role of the Chinese-dominated guerilla resistance movement, and the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army or MPAJA, while highlighting how the occupation inspired anti-colonialism and awakened Malay nationalism.
>> The communist insurgency, which began in 1948 in Malaya, marked another period of trial and tribulation. The Malayan Emergency (1948-60) saw widespread violence, unrest and terrorism, although the communist guerillas claimed that their armed struggle was to free Malaya from British rule.
To combat the communist threat, the British administration introduced emergency laws, which infringed fundamental human rights, imposed restrictions on the media, and allowed for arrests and indefinite detention without trial.
However, the British realised that the battle against the communists could be won only by granting independence to Malaya and handing over power to non-communist nationalist elites. Consequently, it held general elections in 1955 in which the Umno-MCA-MIC Alliance won 51 of the 52 contested seats in the Federal Legislative Council.
The Alliance had campaigned on a platform of amnesty for the communists to persuade them to lay down their arms. To discuss the terms of amnesty, Alliance leader Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was then Malaya’s Chief Minister, met with Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leaders in Baling, Kedah, on Dec 28 and 29, 1955.
The Tunku was accompanied by Singapore Chief Minister David Marshall and MCA chief Tun Tan Cheng Lock, while the communists were led by CPM secretary-general Chin Peng, and his party colleagues, Chen Tien and Rashid Mydin.
The talks, however, broke down as the Tunku rejected the CPM’s demand for recognition in exchange for ending its armed struggle. The Tunku also turned down its second demand that there be no police screening of CPM members who turned themselves in to the authorities.
However, Chin Peng made a startling concession at the talks by saying that the communists would lay down their arms if the Alliance government had self-determination in internal security and national defence. To which the Tunku replied: “Is that a promise? When I come back from England (from the independence talks with the British government) that is the thing that I am bringing back with me.”
Great publicity was given to this “concession” by Chin Peng, and it strengthened the Tunku’s hand in the negotiations he held with the British in January, 1956.
In his retirement, Tunku, in his memoirs Lest We Forget (1983), belatedly acknowledged the communists’ role in securing Malaya’s independence:
“Just as Indonesia was fighting a bloody battle, so were the communists of Malaya, who too fought for independence. With the difference that the communists of Malaya were not the indigenous people of this country and they were fighting to set up a communist regime, which the believers in the faith of Islam could not support nor could those orthodox people, who believed in freedom and democracy. So the struggle for the independence of this country was carried out by the communists alone and they fought a subversive as well as a shooting war … and would have gone on had the British government not yielded to our demand for a general election as a step towards independence.”
However, the current administration has been reluctant to accord the communists any recognition because it fought an armed insurgency, for at least 35 years, that ended only in 1989.
>> The period of konfrontasi launched by Indonesia under President Sukarno against the formation of Malaysia was another pivotal moment in our nation’s history.
In 1961, independent Malaya, Singapore and the British formulated a merger of Singapore and Malaya, with the eventual incorporation of the Borneo territories of Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah) into a new Federation of Malaysia.
Jakarta, however, was not happy with this development, seeing the Malaysian federation as a “neo-colonial plot” since British bases would remain.
The strongest opposition came from Brunei. Although Brunei’s monarch showed some interest in joining Malaysia, in December of 1962, the Brunei People’s Party (Partai Raayat) launched a short-lived rebellion against Malaysia, in favour of an independent state of North Kalimantan comprising Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo.
On Sept 25 , 1963 – nine days after Malaysia was formed – Sukarno announced that he would ganyang Malaysia (crush Malaysia) after both countries had severed diplomatic ties.
A small-scale border war erupted in the jungles of Kalimantan, in which Malaysian and British forces engaged with the Indonesian Army. In August and September of 1964, small-scale Indonesian incursions into Peninsular Malaysia took place, but the infiltrators were all rounded up.
When Singapore announced its separation from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965, Sukarno viewed this as confirmation of the confrontation’s righteousness. However, there was already a split within the Indonesian Army, with many top generals inclined to end the confrontation.
Indonesia’s konfrontasi ended after only two years following an ill-planned coup attempt in Jakarta from Sept 30 to Oct 1 1965, in which the Indonesian Communist Party was implicated. Events soon led to the rise of General Suharto who toppled Sukarno, recognised Malaysia and restored diplomatic relations with Malaysia.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Monday, July 23, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Friday, 20 July 2007
With a little help from the British
With a little help from the British
Merdeka marked the end of British rule in Malaya, which dated from 1786 when the British East India Company's Captain Francis Light occupied the island of Penang.
Merdeka also brought to a close 171 years of British rule, interrupted only by the three-and-a-half years of Japanese occupation.
Malaya's independence from the British empire was negotiated amicably between the British government and Malaya's nationalist leaders, and the transition of power occurred smoothly. Both sides realised that the new nation needed a little help especially in defence and economic aid to stand on its own, and Britain had a responsibility to provide that support.
For Britain, the celebration of Malaysia's 50th Merdeka anniversary is more than a nostalgic commemoration of a historic event in bilateral relations. It is also an opportunity to shape how the relationship will develop over the next 50 years.
Looking back
"Malaya was not the first former colony to become independent. The first colonies were India and Pakistan in the late 1940s. So by 1957, we had a certain amount of experience in handing over responsibility to new nations which were formerly members of the British empire," said British High Commissioner to Malaysia Boyd McCleary (pix below).
In an interview at his office, McCleary noted that even though Malaya gained independence only in 1957, the recognition of the need to transfer power started before that.
"The empire was coming to an end and we were trying to effectively transfer responsibility to those that were becoming independent. The British administration throughout the empire started preparing the people of those countries for independence."
During the colonial administration, the British practised a divide-and-rule policy, which left a deep-rooted effect in Malaya's plural society. However, as they prepared to transfer power to a local government, there were efforts taken to ensure the different communities could live and work together as a self-governing nation, and to include provisions in the constitution to safeguard the interests of all communities.
Tunku Abdul Rahman acknowledged that the British left behind a strong administrative system. He said in his speech on Aug 31, 1957: "This is the greatest moment in the life of the Malayan people. A new star has risen in the eastern sky - a star of freedom." He went on to say, "With freedom there is much for all to do, and the legacy of a good administration forged and tempered to perfection by British administrators must not be allowed to suffer in efficiency and integrity."
McCleary said Tunku's comment was a clear recognition of Britain's strong legacy. "If you look at the way the Malayans were prepared for the administrative role they were going to have to play, through institutions like the Malay College [in Kuala Kangsar], I think it's clear that we were very conscious of the need to hand something over which was working, to people who were in a position to take on that role, and needed therefore preparation, support, training, advice, assistance, and all those things we were prepared to give."
All that was happening during the period when Malayan, British and other Commonwealth soldiers were battling the Communist insurgency. "I think it's good to recall that British and other Commonwealth soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder with Malayan soldiers at that time against the insurgency. That's an important part of the memory of Merdeka," he said.
Since independence, Malaya has been part of the Commonwealth and later entered into the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement with the UK. Under this pact, Britain guaranteed the defence of Malaya, later Malaysia. British and other Commonwealth soldiers played an important role in the nation's security during the Malayan Emergency (1948-60) and the Indonesian Confrontation (1962-66).
After the British defence pact ended, it was replaced with the Five-Power Defence Arrangement in 1971, whereby Malaysia, Singapore, Britain, Australia and New Zealand agreed to work together in defence, and to consult in the event of an attack on Malaysia or Singapore. The collaboration still exists, and the five powers hold annual naval and air exercises.
Building blocks
"We are clearly seen as having left behind a legacy that is positive. We did put real effort and commitment into training the legacy administrators," McCleary said, referring to those who were identified and handpicked to take over the country's administration.
"Our institutions are still respected," he added, citing several institutions in Malaysia such as the legal and judicial system, and the police and armed forces which have maintained the structure the British left behind.
"That, I think, is a reflection of the respect and high regard in which the British traditions were held by Malaya and Malaysia," he said.
"Of course the Malayan/Malaysian administration didn't just take what we left behind and left it exactly the same. There has been development to take into account the special circumstances here, and that's absolutely right.
"We wouldn't expect to leave something that was to be left untouched. I think the way in which the Malaysian government has developed those institutions which we left behind is something of which it can be rightly very proud."
Other than appointing the Reid Commission to frame the Malayan Independence Constitution, the British played a vital role in providing training for some of the core skills the new nation needed.
"About 70% to 80% of the barristers currently practising in Malaysia were trained in the UK. Eight out of the nine Lord Presidents/Chief Justices in the country since independence were barristers from England," McCleary noted.
"A third of the cabinet ministers - including the first three prime ministers - were English-trained barristers."
Other than lawyers, a large number of Malayans, and later Malaysians, were trained in the UK in medicine, engineering and education. "There's a whole generation of teachers here who were trained in teachers' training colleges in the UK. These colleges were developed specifically for Malaya, like Brinsford Lodge and Kirby," he said.
"Malaya didn't really have strong tertiary institutions then. It had Universiti Malaya, which was part of the university in Singapore. It was not sufficient to train the engineers and doctors that Malaya needed. So there was no option but to go overseas to train in the core skills, and the natural choice then was Britain because that was seen as the Ômother' country."
Today, 50 years later, Malaysians are still heading to Britain for education, in new areas or postgraduate studies in information technology, gaming technology, animation, biotechnology and oil and gas. McCleary said the partnerships between British and Malaysian institutions today demonstrate a "continuing relationship" between the two countries.
"It's a much more balanced relationship than 50 years ago because you have developed into a more mature economy and democracy, and our institutions can now talk about building links that are of mutual benefit; it's no longer a one-way traffic but it's a two-way street between Britain and Malaysia."
To celebrate the 50th Merdeka anniversary, the High Commission in Malaysia has organised a year-long "Malaysia & UK: Forward Together" campaign, which kicked off in January. Packed with events throughout the year, the campaign aims to build on mutual interests in areas such as education, science, innovation, arts and culture. "To reflect on the past but also look to the future and find ways to build new partnerships and relationships with young Malaysians, which reflect their needs, wishes, and offer a more equal partnership," McCleary said.
"It would be a big mistake to just assume that things continue the way they were in the past. The areas of focus and issues that the campaign has lined up are designed to help pave the way for the relationship to develop over the next 50 years, to provide a platform for future collaboration and focus on areas that are important to Malaysia."
Source:Cindy Tham, The Sun, Friday, July 20, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Merdeka marked the end of British rule in Malaya, which dated from 1786 when the British East India Company's Captain Francis Light occupied the island of Penang.
Merdeka also brought to a close 171 years of British rule, interrupted only by the three-and-a-half years of Japanese occupation.
Malaya's independence from the British empire was negotiated amicably between the British government and Malaya's nationalist leaders, and the transition of power occurred smoothly. Both sides realised that the new nation needed a little help especially in defence and economic aid to stand on its own, and Britain had a responsibility to provide that support.
For Britain, the celebration of Malaysia's 50th Merdeka anniversary is more than a nostalgic commemoration of a historic event in bilateral relations. It is also an opportunity to shape how the relationship will develop over the next 50 years.
Looking back
"Malaya was not the first former colony to become independent. The first colonies were India and Pakistan in the late 1940s. So by 1957, we had a certain amount of experience in handing over responsibility to new nations which were formerly members of the British empire," said British High Commissioner to Malaysia Boyd McCleary (pix below).
In an interview at his office, McCleary noted that even though Malaya gained independence only in 1957, the recognition of the need to transfer power started before that.
"The empire was coming to an end and we were trying to effectively transfer responsibility to those that were becoming independent. The British administration throughout the empire started preparing the people of those countries for independence."
During the colonial administration, the British practised a divide-and-rule policy, which left a deep-rooted effect in Malaya's plural society. However, as they prepared to transfer power to a local government, there were efforts taken to ensure the different communities could live and work together as a self-governing nation, and to include provisions in the constitution to safeguard the interests of all communities.
Tunku Abdul Rahman acknowledged that the British left behind a strong administrative system. He said in his speech on Aug 31, 1957: "This is the greatest moment in the life of the Malayan people. A new star has risen in the eastern sky - a star of freedom." He went on to say, "With freedom there is much for all to do, and the legacy of a good administration forged and tempered to perfection by British administrators must not be allowed to suffer in efficiency and integrity."
McCleary said Tunku's comment was a clear recognition of Britain's strong legacy. "If you look at the way the Malayans were prepared for the administrative role they were going to have to play, through institutions like the Malay College [in Kuala Kangsar], I think it's clear that we were very conscious of the need to hand something over which was working, to people who were in a position to take on that role, and needed therefore preparation, support, training, advice, assistance, and all those things we were prepared to give."
All that was happening during the period when Malayan, British and other Commonwealth soldiers were battling the Communist insurgency. "I think it's good to recall that British and other Commonwealth soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder with Malayan soldiers at that time against the insurgency. That's an important part of the memory of Merdeka," he said.
Since independence, Malaya has been part of the Commonwealth and later entered into the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement with the UK. Under this pact, Britain guaranteed the defence of Malaya, later Malaysia. British and other Commonwealth soldiers played an important role in the nation's security during the Malayan Emergency (1948-60) and the Indonesian Confrontation (1962-66).
After the British defence pact ended, it was replaced with the Five-Power Defence Arrangement in 1971, whereby Malaysia, Singapore, Britain, Australia and New Zealand agreed to work together in defence, and to consult in the event of an attack on Malaysia or Singapore. The collaboration still exists, and the five powers hold annual naval and air exercises.
Building blocks
"We are clearly seen as having left behind a legacy that is positive. We did put real effort and commitment into training the legacy administrators," McCleary said, referring to those who were identified and handpicked to take over the country's administration.
"Our institutions are still respected," he added, citing several institutions in Malaysia such as the legal and judicial system, and the police and armed forces which have maintained the structure the British left behind.
"That, I think, is a reflection of the respect and high regard in which the British traditions were held by Malaya and Malaysia," he said.
"Of course the Malayan/Malaysian administration didn't just take what we left behind and left it exactly the same. There has been development to take into account the special circumstances here, and that's absolutely right.
"We wouldn't expect to leave something that was to be left untouched. I think the way in which the Malaysian government has developed those institutions which we left behind is something of which it can be rightly very proud."
Other than appointing the Reid Commission to frame the Malayan Independence Constitution, the British played a vital role in providing training for some of the core skills the new nation needed.
"About 70% to 80% of the barristers currently practising in Malaysia were trained in the UK. Eight out of the nine Lord Presidents/Chief Justices in the country since independence were barristers from England," McCleary noted.
"A third of the cabinet ministers - including the first three prime ministers - were English-trained barristers."
Other than lawyers, a large number of Malayans, and later Malaysians, were trained in the UK in medicine, engineering and education. "There's a whole generation of teachers here who were trained in teachers' training colleges in the UK. These colleges were developed specifically for Malaya, like Brinsford Lodge and Kirby," he said.
"Malaya didn't really have strong tertiary institutions then. It had Universiti Malaya, which was part of the university in Singapore. It was not sufficient to train the engineers and doctors that Malaya needed. So there was no option but to go overseas to train in the core skills, and the natural choice then was Britain because that was seen as the Ômother' country."
Today, 50 years later, Malaysians are still heading to Britain for education, in new areas or postgraduate studies in information technology, gaming technology, animation, biotechnology and oil and gas. McCleary said the partnerships between British and Malaysian institutions today demonstrate a "continuing relationship" between the two countries.
"It's a much more balanced relationship than 50 years ago because you have developed into a more mature economy and democracy, and our institutions can now talk about building links that are of mutual benefit; it's no longer a one-way traffic but it's a two-way street between Britain and Malaysia."
To celebrate the 50th Merdeka anniversary, the High Commission in Malaysia has organised a year-long "Malaysia & UK: Forward Together" campaign, which kicked off in January. Packed with events throughout the year, the campaign aims to build on mutual interests in areas such as education, science, innovation, arts and culture. "To reflect on the past but also look to the future and find ways to build new partnerships and relationships with young Malaysians, which reflect their needs, wishes, and offer a more equal partnership," McCleary said.
"It would be a big mistake to just assume that things continue the way they were in the past. The areas of focus and issues that the campaign has lined up are designed to help pave the way for the relationship to develop over the next 50 years, to provide a platform for future collaboration and focus on areas that are important to Malaysia."
Source:Cindy Tham, The Sun, Friday, July 20, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Sambanthan - Champion of the Poor
Sambanthan - Champion of the Poor
HE was one of independent Malaya's founding fathers, and understood how essential racial harmony was in nation building. Tun V.T. Sambanthan, the fifth MIC president from 1955 to 1973, was one of the signatories of the Merdeka Agreement on Aug 31, 1957.
Additionally, he was one of the country's pioneer cabinet ministers, beginning as Labour Minister (1955-57), followed by ministerial positions in the ministries of Health (1957-59), Works, Posts and Telecommunications (1959-71), and National Unity (1972-74).
"One of the challenges of the early Malayan government was getting citizenship organised for the people," Sambanthan's widow, Toh Puan Uma Sambanthan, said.
A majority of the Indians in post-independent Malaya were poor, migrant plantation workers from the villages of Tamil Nadu, South India.
They neither understood the process and benefits of citizenship nor did they possess the resources to become citizens in the newly-independent nation.
Because Sambanthan, as his father before him, had worked towards empowering migrant workers in their rubber estates in Sungai Siput, Perak, he understood too well the need to assist their integration into society at large, and to help them gain the political and civil rights of citizenship.
"The MIC would fill up citizenship forms for these migrant workers and bring a Justice of Peace to the estates for mass swearing every weekend during the year when passing the Malay language was not yet mandatory for citizenship.
"Many of them would not have known how to fill up the forms. And we couldn't expect them to come to the city to look for a Justice of Peace," Uma told theSun at her home in Petaling Jaya.
She said even the urban Indians had lost touch with the reality of the majority of the Indian community in the estates.
Sambanthan's challenge, as the sole Indian representative in the new cabinet and Parliament, was to make his colleagues aware that these workers had contributed to the country, and that there was an urgent need to uplift them economically.
However, he did not believe in making loud demands for minority rights. "Instead, he worked towards improving the workers' lot so that they could play their part as citizens of a free country. He believed that if a community fulfilled its duty to the nation, their rights would follow," Uma said.
"He also didn't want the community to be handicapped and to have to keep asking for assistance," she added.
Sambanthan, who passed away 28 years ago, was responsible for setting up the National Land Finance Cooperative Society (NLFCS) in 1960 to give Indian workers a chance to own land at a time when rubber estates were being fragmented and they were losing their jobs.
It was the first cooperative to provide a solution to a real social problem, and would later be a model for other national cooperatives.
Before he died, Sambanthan managed to acquire for the cooperative the building which had been the Shell Malaysia headquarters. He predicted in his presidential address at his last NLFCS annual general assembly in 1978, that the five-storey building could eventually be converted into a high-rise building representing the growth of the poor estate worker's asset base. The building today stands 27 storeys high.
"It was a national cooperative and the other races were allowed to buy shares in it, too," Uma said, remembering that during her husband's time, the Malays and Chinese owned about 9% of the cooperative.
She said Tunku Abdul Rahman, in his speech at the launch of the 1,200ha Bukit Sidim estate in Kulim that the NLFCS bought after only a year of existence, noted that it was only in a democracy such as Malaya's that such a venture was possible to assist the poor.
Bukit Sidim was the NLFCS's first purchase and was bought for RM3 million from its British owner without government support. By the time of Sambanthan's death, the cooperative had bought over more than 20 estates, totalling 12,000ha, and had a membership of 85,000 workers.
The May 13 clashes were another major challenge for the new government. Sambanthan chaired some of the committees under the National Operations Council that was set up to run the country in the midst of the riots until 1971.
"Even before he became national unity minister, he wanted to build bridges by maintaining each community's right to cultural expression, and doing everything to bring back each race's confidence so that the wounds would heal," Uma said.
Uma said Sambanthan believed that poverty eradication should benefit all the races.
"In his first speech as national unity minister, he defined poverty for all the races and underscored the need for measures that were in proportion to what each community needed."
Of the early cabinet, Uma said: "They were building the nation. They weren't just working for the next general elections but it was a long-term vision for the country."
Their mission of nation building, she said, was driven by a recognition that racial harmony would provide a strong foundation for Malaysia. It was this principle, she stressed, that helped build the nation in the first 10 years after independence.
Source: Jacqueline Ann Surin, The Sun, Thursday, July 19,2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
HE was one of independent Malaya's founding fathers, and understood how essential racial harmony was in nation building. Tun V.T. Sambanthan, the fifth MIC president from 1955 to 1973, was one of the signatories of the Merdeka Agreement on Aug 31, 1957.
Additionally, he was one of the country's pioneer cabinet ministers, beginning as Labour Minister (1955-57), followed by ministerial positions in the ministries of Health (1957-59), Works, Posts and Telecommunications (1959-71), and National Unity (1972-74).
"One of the challenges of the early Malayan government was getting citizenship organised for the people," Sambanthan's widow, Toh Puan Uma Sambanthan, said.
A majority of the Indians in post-independent Malaya were poor, migrant plantation workers from the villages of Tamil Nadu, South India.
They neither understood the process and benefits of citizenship nor did they possess the resources to become citizens in the newly-independent nation.
Because Sambanthan, as his father before him, had worked towards empowering migrant workers in their rubber estates in Sungai Siput, Perak, he understood too well the need to assist their integration into society at large, and to help them gain the political and civil rights of citizenship.
"The MIC would fill up citizenship forms for these migrant workers and bring a Justice of Peace to the estates for mass swearing every weekend during the year when passing the Malay language was not yet mandatory for citizenship.
"Many of them would not have known how to fill up the forms. And we couldn't expect them to come to the city to look for a Justice of Peace," Uma told theSun at her home in Petaling Jaya.
She said even the urban Indians had lost touch with the reality of the majority of the Indian community in the estates.
Sambanthan's challenge, as the sole Indian representative in the new cabinet and Parliament, was to make his colleagues aware that these workers had contributed to the country, and that there was an urgent need to uplift them economically.
However, he did not believe in making loud demands for minority rights. "Instead, he worked towards improving the workers' lot so that they could play their part as citizens of a free country. He believed that if a community fulfilled its duty to the nation, their rights would follow," Uma said.
"He also didn't want the community to be handicapped and to have to keep asking for assistance," she added.
Sambanthan, who passed away 28 years ago, was responsible for setting up the National Land Finance Cooperative Society (NLFCS) in 1960 to give Indian workers a chance to own land at a time when rubber estates were being fragmented and they were losing their jobs.
It was the first cooperative to provide a solution to a real social problem, and would later be a model for other national cooperatives.
Before he died, Sambanthan managed to acquire for the cooperative the building which had been the Shell Malaysia headquarters. He predicted in his presidential address at his last NLFCS annual general assembly in 1978, that the five-storey building could eventually be converted into a high-rise building representing the growth of the poor estate worker's asset base. The building today stands 27 storeys high.
"It was a national cooperative and the other races were allowed to buy shares in it, too," Uma said, remembering that during her husband's time, the Malays and Chinese owned about 9% of the cooperative.
She said Tunku Abdul Rahman, in his speech at the launch of the 1,200ha Bukit Sidim estate in Kulim that the NLFCS bought after only a year of existence, noted that it was only in a democracy such as Malaya's that such a venture was possible to assist the poor.
Bukit Sidim was the NLFCS's first purchase and was bought for RM3 million from its British owner without government support. By the time of Sambanthan's death, the cooperative had bought over more than 20 estates, totalling 12,000ha, and had a membership of 85,000 workers.
The May 13 clashes were another major challenge for the new government. Sambanthan chaired some of the committees under the National Operations Council that was set up to run the country in the midst of the riots until 1971.
"Even before he became national unity minister, he wanted to build bridges by maintaining each community's right to cultural expression, and doing everything to bring back each race's confidence so that the wounds would heal," Uma said.
Uma said Sambanthan believed that poverty eradication should benefit all the races.
"In his first speech as national unity minister, he defined poverty for all the races and underscored the need for measures that were in proportion to what each community needed."
Of the early cabinet, Uma said: "They were building the nation. They weren't just working for the next general elections but it was a long-term vision for the country."
Their mission of nation building, she said, was driven by a recognition that racial harmony would provide a strong foundation for Malaysia. It was this principle, she stressed, that helped build the nation in the first 10 years after independence.
Source: Jacqueline Ann Surin, The Sun, Thursday, July 19,2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Electing the Government
Electing the Government
IN Malaya, decolonisation happened after political unification and democratisation. In 1946, the 11 states of Peninsular Malaya were organised into a single political unit as the short-lived Malayan Union, which was replaced by the Federation of Malaya in 1948.
The federation had no popularly-elected government until 1951 but the democratisation process quickly picked up momentum.
In the early years, Malayans elected their public officials at all three levels of government. The gradual expansion of suffrage and voting began with the 1951 to 1952 local elections in major townships. Then, there were state elections in Johor, Terengganu and Penang, followed by the 1955 federal elections for a home rule government. The process was completed in 1959 when all Malayans went to the polls to appoint their representatives for the state governments and the federal Parliament.
The 1952 Kuala Lumpur municipal elections have arguably shaped the democratisation trajectory of Malaya/Malaysia more than any of the national elections, including the 1955 and 1969 elections, and certainly more than the 1990 and 1999 elections.
Prior to the 1952 municipal elections, Datuk Onn Jaafar had resigned as Umno president after members rejected his plan to transform the ethno-nationalist party into a vehicle for all Malayans.
The multi-ethnic Independence of Malaya Party (IMP) he formed enjoyed the support of many fellow Malay aristocrats as well as non-Malay political leaders, including MCA founder and president Sir (later Tun) Tan Cheng Lock.
Umno's political dominance, which was established with its effective veto of the Malayan Union, might have ended had the Selangor branches of Umno and MCA not teamed up to contest the 1952 Kuala Lumpur polls. The coalition of ethnic parties handsomely beat the multiethnic IMP by nine to two in the 12-seat contest. The victory in Kuala Lumpur, and later in other major towns, sealed the Umno-MCA pact, later known as the Alliance party, which MIC joined in 1954.
Feeling betrayed by the non-Malays, Onn soon abandoned multi-ethnic politics to return to Malay nationalism with Parti Negara, the effective successor of IMP.
The 1955 home rule elections which chose half of the Federal Legislative Assembly became the battlefield to determine which of the two Malay aristocrats, Tunku or Onn would lead the nation to independence.
A total of 1,280,000 persons, 84.2% among them Malay, registered as voters. The Alliance won 51 out of 52 seats with 82% of votes, PAS secured the sole opposition seat with 4% voter support, while Parti Negara candidates were wiped out despite winning 8% of voter support.
The dominance of the Umno-led coalition continued in 1959 and 1964 even though its vote shares dropped to 52% and 59% respectively.
In 1959, the Malay proportion of the electorate had fallen to 57% and nearly a third of Malay voters chose to support PAS. Meanwhile, possibly over 40% of non-Malays backed either the Socialist Front or the People's Progressive Party (PPP).
However, thanks to the electoral system, the Alliance still controlled 71% of parliamentary seats and all but two state governments.
Malaysia's establishment in 1963 triggered the Confrontation by Soekarno's Indonesia, which inadvertently strengthened support for the Alliance in the 1964 polls in Malaya as the electorate rallied behind the coalition in the face of a foreign threat.
The Confrontation also gave the federal government a pretext to suspend, in March 1965, local elections, most of which had been won by opposition parties and which had produced some very efficient administrators like the PPP in Ipoh.
The Malaysia project, however, also brought in a fierce competitor for the Alliance - Singapore's People Action Party (PAP), whose initial intention to replace MCA as Umno's Chinese partner was rejected outright.
After the rejection, the PAP planned to challenge the Alliance with a second coalition - the Malaysian Solidarity Convention with Malayan and Sarawakian parties that would champion a Malaysian Malaysia. The plan was terminated abruptly when Tunku chose to expel Singapore from the Federation on Aug 9, 1965.
This aborted first attempt at two-party competition in the larger federation has resulted in both Malaysia and Singapore being "electoral one-party states" today. (Malaysians had to wait 25 years for the next attempt when Semangat 46 contested in the 1990 elections).
The 1969 elections saw the boycott of the Labour Party, and the electoral pact of three other non-Malay based opposition parties: the DAP (PAP's successor), Gerakan and PPP. In the peninsula, Umno lost 16 out of the 67 contested seats to PAS, and its two junior partners - MCA and MIC - 21 out of their allocated 36 seats to the opposition trio. At state level, not only did PAS retain Kelantan, Gerakan also grabbed Penang while no party controlled the majority in Perak and Selangor. The changed political landscape unfortunately resulted, not in more competitive legislative politics, but the bloodshed of May 13, the root causes of which still invite debate.
Worse, the post-riot political arrangement severely castrated electoral politics. Not only were certain "sensitive" issues removed from public debate, major opposition parties were co-opted by the Alliance, first through coalition governments in Sarawak (the SUPP), then Penang (Gerakan), Ipoh (PPP) and Kelantan (PAS), and eventually into the enlarged coalition of Barisan Nasional (BN), formally launched in 1974.
The only loyal opposition parties in Parliament were the DAP and the Sarawak National Party (SNAP). PAS, meanwhile, pulled out of the BN in 1977, after four years of being a coalition partner with its erstwhile arch rival Umno.
From 1978 to 1986, PAS and the DAP became the only two effective challengers to the BN with about 15% and 20% of total voter support respectively. Their parliamentary strengths in terms of seats were, however, unfortunately low. PAS's strength in Parliament was between 1% and 3% while the DAP's was between 6% and 14%.
The two schisms in Umno in 1987 and 1998, resulting effectively in the purge of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, gave birth to new parties which were expected to serve as the core in new opposition coalitions that would bring together PAS and the DAP. Both the new parties, Semangat 46 and Keadilan, however, failed to win enough seats in 1990 and 1999 to command respect and unity from their partners. Since then, the opposition coalitions in 1990 and 1999 have either been dissolved or seriously weakened by the 1995 and 2004 elections. Not surprisingly, the BN has won these elections with phenomenal voter support - 65% in 1995 and 64% in 2004.
While Anwar and Keadilan soldier on and will contest for the third time in a general election, Razaleigh dissolved Semangat 46 to rejoin Umno one year after his second defeat.
The first-past-the-post electoral system has failed to produce bipartism in Malaysia as it did in countries like the US and the UK. Many blame it on the ethno-religious cleavage in Malaysian society.
The real root cause might actually be the electoral system itself coupled with excessive gerrymandering and mal-apportionment of constituencies. When united opposition parties are effectively nowhere closer to the seat of government despite winning between 43% (1999) and 46% (1990) of popular votes, what's the good of remaining united?
Wong Chin Huat is reading electoral system at University of Essex for his PhD and lectures in Arts at Monash University - Sunway Campus. He is co-editing a book on the 2004 general elections with Prof Noraini Othman at Ikmas, UKM.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, The Sun, Thursday, July 19, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
IN Malaya, decolonisation happened after political unification and democratisation. In 1946, the 11 states of Peninsular Malaya were organised into a single political unit as the short-lived Malayan Union, which was replaced by the Federation of Malaya in 1948.
The federation had no popularly-elected government until 1951 but the democratisation process quickly picked up momentum.
In the early years, Malayans elected their public officials at all three levels of government. The gradual expansion of suffrage and voting began with the 1951 to 1952 local elections in major townships. Then, there were state elections in Johor, Terengganu and Penang, followed by the 1955 federal elections for a home rule government. The process was completed in 1959 when all Malayans went to the polls to appoint their representatives for the state governments and the federal Parliament.
The 1952 Kuala Lumpur municipal elections have arguably shaped the democratisation trajectory of Malaya/Malaysia more than any of the national elections, including the 1955 and 1969 elections, and certainly more than the 1990 and 1999 elections.
Prior to the 1952 municipal elections, Datuk Onn Jaafar had resigned as Umno president after members rejected his plan to transform the ethno-nationalist party into a vehicle for all Malayans.
The multi-ethnic Independence of Malaya Party (IMP) he formed enjoyed the support of many fellow Malay aristocrats as well as non-Malay political leaders, including MCA founder and president Sir (later Tun) Tan Cheng Lock.
Umno's political dominance, which was established with its effective veto of the Malayan Union, might have ended had the Selangor branches of Umno and MCA not teamed up to contest the 1952 Kuala Lumpur polls. The coalition of ethnic parties handsomely beat the multiethnic IMP by nine to two in the 12-seat contest. The victory in Kuala Lumpur, and later in other major towns, sealed the Umno-MCA pact, later known as the Alliance party, which MIC joined in 1954.
Feeling betrayed by the non-Malays, Onn soon abandoned multi-ethnic politics to return to Malay nationalism with Parti Negara, the effective successor of IMP.
The 1955 home rule elections which chose half of the Federal Legislative Assembly became the battlefield to determine which of the two Malay aristocrats, Tunku or Onn would lead the nation to independence.
A total of 1,280,000 persons, 84.2% among them Malay, registered as voters. The Alliance won 51 out of 52 seats with 82% of votes, PAS secured the sole opposition seat with 4% voter support, while Parti Negara candidates were wiped out despite winning 8% of voter support.
The dominance of the Umno-led coalition continued in 1959 and 1964 even though its vote shares dropped to 52% and 59% respectively.
In 1959, the Malay proportion of the electorate had fallen to 57% and nearly a third of Malay voters chose to support PAS. Meanwhile, possibly over 40% of non-Malays backed either the Socialist Front or the People's Progressive Party (PPP).
However, thanks to the electoral system, the Alliance still controlled 71% of parliamentary seats and all but two state governments.
Malaysia's establishment in 1963 triggered the Confrontation by Soekarno's Indonesia, which inadvertently strengthened support for the Alliance in the 1964 polls in Malaya as the electorate rallied behind the coalition in the face of a foreign threat.
The Confrontation also gave the federal government a pretext to suspend, in March 1965, local elections, most of which had been won by opposition parties and which had produced some very efficient administrators like the PPP in Ipoh.
The Malaysia project, however, also brought in a fierce competitor for the Alliance - Singapore's People Action Party (PAP), whose initial intention to replace MCA as Umno's Chinese partner was rejected outright.
After the rejection, the PAP planned to challenge the Alliance with a second coalition - the Malaysian Solidarity Convention with Malayan and Sarawakian parties that would champion a Malaysian Malaysia. The plan was terminated abruptly when Tunku chose to expel Singapore from the Federation on Aug 9, 1965.
This aborted first attempt at two-party competition in the larger federation has resulted in both Malaysia and Singapore being "electoral one-party states" today. (Malaysians had to wait 25 years for the next attempt when Semangat 46 contested in the 1990 elections).
The 1969 elections saw the boycott of the Labour Party, and the electoral pact of three other non-Malay based opposition parties: the DAP (PAP's successor), Gerakan and PPP. In the peninsula, Umno lost 16 out of the 67 contested seats to PAS, and its two junior partners - MCA and MIC - 21 out of their allocated 36 seats to the opposition trio. At state level, not only did PAS retain Kelantan, Gerakan also grabbed Penang while no party controlled the majority in Perak and Selangor. The changed political landscape unfortunately resulted, not in more competitive legislative politics, but the bloodshed of May 13, the root causes of which still invite debate.
Worse, the post-riot political arrangement severely castrated electoral politics. Not only were certain "sensitive" issues removed from public debate, major opposition parties were co-opted by the Alliance, first through coalition governments in Sarawak (the SUPP), then Penang (Gerakan), Ipoh (PPP) and Kelantan (PAS), and eventually into the enlarged coalition of Barisan Nasional (BN), formally launched in 1974.
The only loyal opposition parties in Parliament were the DAP and the Sarawak National Party (SNAP). PAS, meanwhile, pulled out of the BN in 1977, after four years of being a coalition partner with its erstwhile arch rival Umno.
From 1978 to 1986, PAS and the DAP became the only two effective challengers to the BN with about 15% and 20% of total voter support respectively. Their parliamentary strengths in terms of seats were, however, unfortunately low. PAS's strength in Parliament was between 1% and 3% while the DAP's was between 6% and 14%.
The two schisms in Umno in 1987 and 1998, resulting effectively in the purge of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, gave birth to new parties which were expected to serve as the core in new opposition coalitions that would bring together PAS and the DAP. Both the new parties, Semangat 46 and Keadilan, however, failed to win enough seats in 1990 and 1999 to command respect and unity from their partners. Since then, the opposition coalitions in 1990 and 1999 have either been dissolved or seriously weakened by the 1995 and 2004 elections. Not surprisingly, the BN has won these elections with phenomenal voter support - 65% in 1995 and 64% in 2004.
While Anwar and Keadilan soldier on and will contest for the third time in a general election, Razaleigh dissolved Semangat 46 to rejoin Umno one year after his second defeat.
The first-past-the-post electoral system has failed to produce bipartism in Malaysia as it did in countries like the US and the UK. Many blame it on the ethno-religious cleavage in Malaysian society.
The real root cause might actually be the electoral system itself coupled with excessive gerrymandering and mal-apportionment of constituencies. When united opposition parties are effectively nowhere closer to the seat of government despite winning between 43% (1999) and 46% (1990) of popular votes, what's the good of remaining united?
Wong Chin Huat is reading electoral system at University of Essex for his PhD and lectures in Arts at Monash University - Sunway Campus. He is co-editing a book on the 2004 general elections with Prof Noraini Othman at Ikmas, UKM.
Source: Wong Chin Huat, The Sun, Thursday, July 19, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Testing times for the Alliance
Testing times for the Alliance
AFTER the Alliance won a landslide victory in the first federal election in 1955, winning 51 of the 52 seats in the Federal Legislative Council, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the one-time playboy, became chief minister.
The British were still masters but Tunku and his pre-Merdeka Alliance cabinet were able to exert a strong influence in the running of the government because they were also supported by 19 other members in the 98-seat council.
The other members of Tunku's cabinet consisted of Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Tun H.S. Lee, Tun V.T. Sambanthan, Tun Sardon Jubir, Tun Ong Yoke Lin, Tun Leong Yew Koh and Abdul Aziz Ishak.
Tunku was 52 when he was sworn in as chief minister and home affairs minister. He later took on added responsibilities as minister for internal security and for defence. Razak became education minister and at 33, was the youngest cabinet member.
After their swearing in on Aug 9, the cabinet members met officially as heads of their respective ministries. There was much bonhomie and camaraderie as they sat down to discuss their agenda for the country to achieve nationhood and their plans to lift the state of emergency, which had been declared in 1948, before the country became independent.
But things almost became undone for the Alliance when its National Council met for the first time on April 10, 1955 to decide on seat allocation for the July 27 general election.
It was originally decided that Umno would contest in 40 constituencies and the MCA in 12. The MIC would not be allocated any seats because it had just joined the Alliance, and was one of the weakest of the Indian organisations at that time.
When word of the allocation got out, Tunku was sharply criticised by Umno members, who were powerful then, for not insisting on 90% of the seats seeing as out of the 1,280,865 voters, 84% were Malays, 11.2% Chinese, and the rest mostly Indians.
The Indians were most unhappy and blamed the MCA, which they said were anti-Indian, for the MIC not getting a single ticket to contest in the elections under the Alliance banner. Their newspaper of the time, Tamil Murasu, called for all Indians to boycott the MIC.
In public, the Chinese kept mute over the seat allocation and the Malay demands. But mostly, they blamed MCA party officials for not working hard enough to register about 300,000 eligible Chinese voters.
Most of the Umno general assemblies in the early days were often stormy, and the leaders were openly criticised by delegates. But Tunku, Razak and Ismail prevailed over most issues including changing the party slogan from "Malaya Untuk Melayu" (Malaya for Malays) to Malaya for all.
But the assembly following the first meeting of the Alliance National Council was especially riotous and threatened to split the party. However, members quickly sobered up after Tunku threatened to resign if the demand for 90% seat allocation was not abandoned.
Gradually, however, most came around to his way of thinking. He won overwhelming support. And with that support, he returned to the Alliance National Council which re-allocated the seats, giving 35 to Umno, 15 to MCA and two to MIC.
Razak had the toughest task of all as education minister to draft a national education policy. He chaired a committee which came out with what is known today as the "Razak Report".
The basic feature was that the existing separate language-medium schools would remain but their contents would be more oriented towards Malaya than China or India, and Malay and English would be compulsory subjects in all schools.
Despite several compromises, the Chinese educationists remained dissatisfied till today. But this did not hinder close cooperation between Umno and MCA in other areas even though a potentially tense situation developed after the Reid Commission started its task of drafting the national charter or constitution because of the bargaining that took place.
There was close cooperation among the three communities to have the emergency lifted by independence. Several districts cleared of communist threats or free from "incidents" involving the communists were declared "white areas".
However by August 1957, some patches of "black areas" remained and the Alliance cabinet realised that its aspiration for the emergency to be lifted early could not be realised. The emergency was finally only lifted in 1960, three years after independence.
The Big Day
Finally, the eve of the big day for the young nation arrived. Harry Miller, a journalist and the Tunku's first biographer wrote:
"Just before the stroke of midnight Abdul Rahman arrived. As the clock in the tower of the Secretariat (now Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad) began to boom the first strokes of the new day, the Union Jack was hauled down slowly from a mast.
"As it was gathered gently by Malay hands and placed on a tray, the Federation of Malaya flag was slowly hoisted to the top of a second mast. The thousands screamed 'Merdeka! Merdeka! Merdeka!' Britons watching from the Selangor Club led the applause, taken up by the Malays standing outside.
"A pledge was honoured and a nation was born. Unashamedly, Abdul Rahman was gripped with the ecstasy and the emotion of the moment. As the shout of 'Merdeka!' died, another rent the air - that of 'Bapa Merdeka!' (Father of Independence) - as the president of the powerful Youth section of the Umno, Inche Sardon bin Haji Jubir, placed a gold medallion on Abdul Rahman's neck. On it was inscribed 'Bapa Merdeka'."
Shortly after that, the Tunku left the Padang, as the Merdeka Square was known then, but because of the traffic jam, he had to walk all the way to his hotel, Hotel Majestic, to wait the few hours before he proclaimed Merdeka at the recently completed Merdeka Stadium.
Also completed just days before the historic event was the country's first five-star hotel, Federal Hotel in Bukit Bintang. It was where foreign dignitaries invited for the occasion were billeted.
One of the first criticisms the Tunku received as Prime Minister was the official headgear he and his cabinet colleagues - Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Tun Razak, Finance Minister Tun H.S. Lee and the rest - had to wear.
The headgear consisted of helmets plumed with red, white, and blue ostrich feathers - so reminiscent of British colonial governors. It was said that many at the stadium had difficulty keeping a straight face when the Tunku and his cabinet colleagues trooped in. Some opposition party members even booed.
The prime minister's reaction was unconcealed displeasure. But he later agreed that the uniform, especially the headgear, was a little outlandish. The plumed helmets were soon replaced by a gold-braided Malay songkok and made in time for the first anniversary of Merdeka.
Early days of government
In appointing members of his cabinet, Tunku based his selection, first and foremost, on his confidence and trust in them, instead of following any party quota. A case in point was when H.S. Lee lost his position as leader of Selangor MCA, which asked for the finance portfolio to go to someone else. Tunku refused.
One of the many problems the new cabinet had to deal with was the question of Malayanisation. Many expatriate officers soon had to give up their positions to their local subordinates.
The cabinet did not realise the situation was going to be a problem until it happened. Within a year, the country lost about 30% of its most experienced officers, causing a drop in government efficiency.
The situation even threatened the implementation of the first five-year development programme which was planned with the administration remaining intact. New local officers were recruited and trained by the expatriate officers before they left the country.
There were also instances when British heads of department refused to take orders from cabinet members. Sambanthan, who was health minister, complained to the Tunku that one of his head of departments refused to take his instruction.
Tunku was angry and exclaimed, "What? Who does he think he is? Does he think Britain still rules this country? This cannot go on and we must make an example of him." Shortly after that, the officer was sacked.
But the greatest problem the government had to face was communalism. If it was not about education, it was about citizenship. And this sometimes affected the government's performance because it comprised representatives of three communal parties.
Within Umno, many members still chaffed at the various compromises the party, and the Malays in general, had been committed to and they continued to berate and criticise their top leaders at every opportunity.
The MIC was divided between those who realised that the party was a weak Alliance partner and so had to work closely with the coalition leaders, and those who felt that the MIC should be more independent and vocal in demanding more Indian rights.
Generally, however, the party united behind its national leaders as Sambanthan, through his close personal association with Tunku, was able to get many concessions for the Indians.
It was the infighting in the MCA which once again threatened the Alliance's solidarity, and saw the departure of party founder Tun Tan Cheng Lock.
The situation was not unlike what was happening in the MIC, between the old guards who were loyal to the Alliance's way of doing things through compromise and accommodation, and the young Turks who wanted to use the party to voice their point of view and who cared less for harmony within the coalition.
But as some observers have noted, the process of alignment and re-alignment within the party has become such a permanent feature that mature attempts have and are being made to prevent party affairs from influencing the MCA's position in the government.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Thursday, July19, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
AFTER the Alliance won a landslide victory in the first federal election in 1955, winning 51 of the 52 seats in the Federal Legislative Council, Tunku Abdul Rahman, the one-time playboy, became chief minister.
The British were still masters but Tunku and his pre-Merdeka Alliance cabinet were able to exert a strong influence in the running of the government because they were also supported by 19 other members in the 98-seat council.
The other members of Tunku's cabinet consisted of Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Tun H.S. Lee, Tun V.T. Sambanthan, Tun Sardon Jubir, Tun Ong Yoke Lin, Tun Leong Yew Koh and Abdul Aziz Ishak.
Tunku was 52 when he was sworn in as chief minister and home affairs minister. He later took on added responsibilities as minister for internal security and for defence. Razak became education minister and at 33, was the youngest cabinet member.
After their swearing in on Aug 9, the cabinet members met officially as heads of their respective ministries. There was much bonhomie and camaraderie as they sat down to discuss their agenda for the country to achieve nationhood and their plans to lift the state of emergency, which had been declared in 1948, before the country became independent.
But things almost became undone for the Alliance when its National Council met for the first time on April 10, 1955 to decide on seat allocation for the July 27 general election.
It was originally decided that Umno would contest in 40 constituencies and the MCA in 12. The MIC would not be allocated any seats because it had just joined the Alliance, and was one of the weakest of the Indian organisations at that time.
When word of the allocation got out, Tunku was sharply criticised by Umno members, who were powerful then, for not insisting on 90% of the seats seeing as out of the 1,280,865 voters, 84% were Malays, 11.2% Chinese, and the rest mostly Indians.
The Indians were most unhappy and blamed the MCA, which they said were anti-Indian, for the MIC not getting a single ticket to contest in the elections under the Alliance banner. Their newspaper of the time, Tamil Murasu, called for all Indians to boycott the MIC.
In public, the Chinese kept mute over the seat allocation and the Malay demands. But mostly, they blamed MCA party officials for not working hard enough to register about 300,000 eligible Chinese voters.
Most of the Umno general assemblies in the early days were often stormy, and the leaders were openly criticised by delegates. But Tunku, Razak and Ismail prevailed over most issues including changing the party slogan from "Malaya Untuk Melayu" (Malaya for Malays) to Malaya for all.
But the assembly following the first meeting of the Alliance National Council was especially riotous and threatened to split the party. However, members quickly sobered up after Tunku threatened to resign if the demand for 90% seat allocation was not abandoned.
Gradually, however, most came around to his way of thinking. He won overwhelming support. And with that support, he returned to the Alliance National Council which re-allocated the seats, giving 35 to Umno, 15 to MCA and two to MIC.
Razak had the toughest task of all as education minister to draft a national education policy. He chaired a committee which came out with what is known today as the "Razak Report".
The basic feature was that the existing separate language-medium schools would remain but their contents would be more oriented towards Malaya than China or India, and Malay and English would be compulsory subjects in all schools.
Despite several compromises, the Chinese educationists remained dissatisfied till today. But this did not hinder close cooperation between Umno and MCA in other areas even though a potentially tense situation developed after the Reid Commission started its task of drafting the national charter or constitution because of the bargaining that took place.
There was close cooperation among the three communities to have the emergency lifted by independence. Several districts cleared of communist threats or free from "incidents" involving the communists were declared "white areas".
However by August 1957, some patches of "black areas" remained and the Alliance cabinet realised that its aspiration for the emergency to be lifted early could not be realised. The emergency was finally only lifted in 1960, three years after independence.
The Big Day
Finally, the eve of the big day for the young nation arrived. Harry Miller, a journalist and the Tunku's first biographer wrote:
"Just before the stroke of midnight Abdul Rahman arrived. As the clock in the tower of the Secretariat (now Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad) began to boom the first strokes of the new day, the Union Jack was hauled down slowly from a mast.
"As it was gathered gently by Malay hands and placed on a tray, the Federation of Malaya flag was slowly hoisted to the top of a second mast. The thousands screamed 'Merdeka! Merdeka! Merdeka!' Britons watching from the Selangor Club led the applause, taken up by the Malays standing outside.
"A pledge was honoured and a nation was born. Unashamedly, Abdul Rahman was gripped with the ecstasy and the emotion of the moment. As the shout of 'Merdeka!' died, another rent the air - that of 'Bapa Merdeka!' (Father of Independence) - as the president of the powerful Youth section of the Umno, Inche Sardon bin Haji Jubir, placed a gold medallion on Abdul Rahman's neck. On it was inscribed 'Bapa Merdeka'."
Shortly after that, the Tunku left the Padang, as the Merdeka Square was known then, but because of the traffic jam, he had to walk all the way to his hotel, Hotel Majestic, to wait the few hours before he proclaimed Merdeka at the recently completed Merdeka Stadium.
Also completed just days before the historic event was the country's first five-star hotel, Federal Hotel in Bukit Bintang. It was where foreign dignitaries invited for the occasion were billeted.
One of the first criticisms the Tunku received as Prime Minister was the official headgear he and his cabinet colleagues - Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Tun Razak, Finance Minister Tun H.S. Lee and the rest - had to wear.
The headgear consisted of helmets plumed with red, white, and blue ostrich feathers - so reminiscent of British colonial governors. It was said that many at the stadium had difficulty keeping a straight face when the Tunku and his cabinet colleagues trooped in. Some opposition party members even booed.
The prime minister's reaction was unconcealed displeasure. But he later agreed that the uniform, especially the headgear, was a little outlandish. The plumed helmets were soon replaced by a gold-braided Malay songkok and made in time for the first anniversary of Merdeka.
Early days of government
In appointing members of his cabinet, Tunku based his selection, first and foremost, on his confidence and trust in them, instead of following any party quota. A case in point was when H.S. Lee lost his position as leader of Selangor MCA, which asked for the finance portfolio to go to someone else. Tunku refused.
One of the many problems the new cabinet had to deal with was the question of Malayanisation. Many expatriate officers soon had to give up their positions to their local subordinates.
The cabinet did not realise the situation was going to be a problem until it happened. Within a year, the country lost about 30% of its most experienced officers, causing a drop in government efficiency.
The situation even threatened the implementation of the first five-year development programme which was planned with the administration remaining intact. New local officers were recruited and trained by the expatriate officers before they left the country.
There were also instances when British heads of department refused to take orders from cabinet members. Sambanthan, who was health minister, complained to the Tunku that one of his head of departments refused to take his instruction.
Tunku was angry and exclaimed, "What? Who does he think he is? Does he think Britain still rules this country? This cannot go on and we must make an example of him." Shortly after that, the officer was sacked.
But the greatest problem the government had to face was communalism. If it was not about education, it was about citizenship. And this sometimes affected the government's performance because it comprised representatives of three communal parties.
Within Umno, many members still chaffed at the various compromises the party, and the Malays in general, had been committed to and they continued to berate and criticise their top leaders at every opportunity.
The MIC was divided between those who realised that the party was a weak Alliance partner and so had to work closely with the coalition leaders, and those who felt that the MIC should be more independent and vocal in demanding more Indian rights.
Generally, however, the party united behind its national leaders as Sambanthan, through his close personal association with Tunku, was able to get many concessions for the Indians.
It was the infighting in the MCA which once again threatened the Alliance's solidarity, and saw the departure of party founder Tun Tan Cheng Lock.
The situation was not unlike what was happening in the MIC, between the old guards who were loyal to the Alliance's way of doing things through compromise and accommodation, and the young Turks who wanted to use the party to voice their point of view and who cared less for harmony within the coalition.
But as some observers have noted, the process of alignment and re-alignment within the party has become such a permanent feature that mature attempts have and are being made to prevent party affairs from influencing the MCA's position in the government.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Thursday, July19, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
The Alliance leaders
Tunku Abdul Rahman
Tunku Abdul Rahman was one of 45 children of his prolific father, Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah of Kedah. The Sultan had married eight women at various stages of his life and died in 1943, aged 79.
One of the eight women, Makche Menjelara - a Siamese - was the Sultan's favourite. She was Tunku's mother. She was a kind woman and would go out of her way to help others - a trait the Tunku inherited.
One day, the Keeper of the Ruler's Seal committed a grievous error which annoyed the Sultan who ordered him sent to prison. The ruler also ordered an executioner to cut off all his children's thumbs.
The man's wife pleaded with Menjelara to intercede with the Sultan as she did not want her children to go through life without thumbs. Menjelara decided to help her.
She told the Sultan she was pregnant and pleaded with her husband not to cut off the thumbs of the Keeper's children as she feared the child in her womb would be born without thumbs.
The Sultan was superstitious and rescinded the order, not knowing his wife had lied. However, shortly after the incident, Menjelara became pregnant with the Tunku. That's why Tunku often joked, "I was born under a lie."
The young prince grew up as a good-natured sportsman and when it was time for him to continue his education abroad, his mother used her influence to get a scholarship. He went to England, studied law and returned to join the administrative service and also Umno.
When Datuk Onn Jaafar resigned as Umno president in 1951, Tunku, who was deputy president, succeeded him. Umno entered its second stage of party struggle with Onn's departure.
Tunku and his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, and other party leaders agreed on a new agenda - Merdeka. Tunku tried to get the cooperation of Onn, who had formed the Independent of Malaya Party, but was spurned.
However, the warm and affable Tunku, with his easy leadership style, was able to forge an alliance with the MCA in 1952 for the Kuala Lumpur municipal elections, and later, with the MIC, in the first federal elections in 1955.
Tunku became chief minister and later, when the country became independent, prime minister. It was under his watch that Malaysia was formed in 1963. In 1970, he gave up the leadership of Umno and the country.
He is remembered as Bapak Kemerdekaan or Father of Independence. The Tunku continued to be active in public life until shortly before he died on Dec 6, 1990.
He helped form the Organisation of Islamic Conference based in Jeddah and became its first secretary-general. He was Regional Islamic Da'wah Council of Southeast Asia and the Pacific president from 1982 to 1988. He also formed Malaysia's Islamic Welfare Organisation (Perkim) and was its president until 1989.
Tan Cheng Lock
Tun Tan Cheng Lock, recognised as one of the country's founding fathers, was born in Malacca on April 5, 1883. He was one of Malacca High School's top students and won a scholarship to study at the Raffles Institution in Singapore.
He remained there as one of its teachers until 1908 when he left to join the rubber industry where he was very active. He later started and owned three rubber companies.
Tan became active in public life from 1912 when the government appointed him as Malacca Council Commissioner. In 1923, he was nominated to the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements.
As president of the Straits Chinese British Association, he championed social causes like the banning of opium smoking, Chinese education and immigration issues.
During the Japanese occupation of Malaya, he was in India where he witnessed the Indian struggle for independence under Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Pandit Nehru. He visualised a united Malaya as a "self-governing" British colony.
After World War II, he was active in a number of Chinese organisations. On Feb 27, 1949, Tan, together with a few close associates, founded the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) with an agenda of winning a place for the Chinese community in the country's affairs as it headed towards independence.
Tan was supportive of Dato Onn Jaafar's non-communal Independent of Malaya Party but decided not to cooperate with him when he discovered that the former Umno president was not too generous on the issue of citizenship.
Tan and Umno president Tunku Abdul Rahman were able to forge a partnership between their parties for the Kuala Lumpur municipal election in 1952. The cooperation was found to benefit both parties, and later the MIC, which joined the partnership in 1955, and their respective communities. A more permanent arrangement came into being in the form of the Alliance, the forerunner of the Barisan Nasional.
In 1958, the MCA president was made a Tun for his contribution to his community and the nation. He died on Dec 16, 1960 at the age of 77.
V.T. Sambanthan
Tun V.T. Sambanthan, the fifth Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) president, was born in Sungai Siput in 1919. His father was a rubber estate owner and when he died, Sambanthan inherited the property.
He was sent to India to study at the Annamalai University in Madras. The Indians were fighting for independence then and much of what went on and what was said influenced the young Sambanthan.
When he returned to Malaya, he quickly became involved in the activities of the Indian organisations, especially the MIC which was formed in 1946 by mostly non-Tamil Indian elites.
Sambanthan worked very hard to bring the party to the Tamil workers which formed about 85% of the plantation work force.
In 1955, he was elected MIC president and remained in that position until 1973. By then, the party had joined the Alliance after it had unsuccessfully tried to collaborate with Datuk Onn Jaafar's Independent of Malaya Party.
Sambanthan was able to establish a personal rapport with Umno president Tunku Abdul Rahman and MCA president Tun Tan Cheng Lock. And it was under his leadership that the MIC achieved a stronger foothold within the Alliance.
Sambanthan was Labour Minister in the pre-Independent cabinet. He was subsequently Health Minister (1957-59), Works, Posts and Telecommunications Minister (1959-1971) and National Unity Minister (1972-74).
Sambanthan resigned as MIC president in 1973 and following that, was made chairman of the National Unity Board, which replaced the National Unity Ministry, until 1978.
In 1960, he promoted the idea of a cooperative to help Indian plantation workers. The cooperative bought an estate at Bukit Sidim, and thereafter purchased more estates that were being sold off by British concerns.
The cooperative later became the National Land and Finance Cooperative Society. Sambanthan was at its helm until his death in 1979.
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tunku Abdul Rahman was one of 45 children of his prolific father, Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah of Kedah. The Sultan had married eight women at various stages of his life and died in 1943, aged 79.
One of the eight women, Makche Menjelara - a Siamese - was the Sultan's favourite. She was Tunku's mother. She was a kind woman and would go out of her way to help others - a trait the Tunku inherited.
One day, the Keeper of the Ruler's Seal committed a grievous error which annoyed the Sultan who ordered him sent to prison. The ruler also ordered an executioner to cut off all his children's thumbs.
The man's wife pleaded with Menjelara to intercede with the Sultan as she did not want her children to go through life without thumbs. Menjelara decided to help her.
She told the Sultan she was pregnant and pleaded with her husband not to cut off the thumbs of the Keeper's children as she feared the child in her womb would be born without thumbs.
The Sultan was superstitious and rescinded the order, not knowing his wife had lied. However, shortly after the incident, Menjelara became pregnant with the Tunku. That's why Tunku often joked, "I was born under a lie."
The young prince grew up as a good-natured sportsman and when it was time for him to continue his education abroad, his mother used her influence to get a scholarship. He went to England, studied law and returned to join the administrative service and also Umno.
When Datuk Onn Jaafar resigned as Umno president in 1951, Tunku, who was deputy president, succeeded him. Umno entered its second stage of party struggle with Onn's departure.
Tunku and his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, and other party leaders agreed on a new agenda - Merdeka. Tunku tried to get the cooperation of Onn, who had formed the Independent of Malaya Party, but was spurned.
However, the warm and affable Tunku, with his easy leadership style, was able to forge an alliance with the MCA in 1952 for the Kuala Lumpur municipal elections, and later, with the MIC, in the first federal elections in 1955.
Tunku became chief minister and later, when the country became independent, prime minister. It was under his watch that Malaysia was formed in 1963. In 1970, he gave up the leadership of Umno and the country.
He is remembered as Bapak Kemerdekaan or Father of Independence. The Tunku continued to be active in public life until shortly before he died on Dec 6, 1990.
He helped form the Organisation of Islamic Conference based in Jeddah and became its first secretary-general. He was Regional Islamic Da'wah Council of Southeast Asia and the Pacific president from 1982 to 1988. He also formed Malaysia's Islamic Welfare Organisation (Perkim) and was its president until 1989.
Tan Cheng Lock
Tun Tan Cheng Lock, recognised as one of the country's founding fathers, was born in Malacca on April 5, 1883. He was one of Malacca High School's top students and won a scholarship to study at the Raffles Institution in Singapore.
He remained there as one of its teachers until 1908 when he left to join the rubber industry where he was very active. He later started and owned three rubber companies.
Tan became active in public life from 1912 when the government appointed him as Malacca Council Commissioner. In 1923, he was nominated to the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements.
As president of the Straits Chinese British Association, he championed social causes like the banning of opium smoking, Chinese education and immigration issues.
During the Japanese occupation of Malaya, he was in India where he witnessed the Indian struggle for independence under Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Pandit Nehru. He visualised a united Malaya as a "self-governing" British colony.
After World War II, he was active in a number of Chinese organisations. On Feb 27, 1949, Tan, together with a few close associates, founded the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) with an agenda of winning a place for the Chinese community in the country's affairs as it headed towards independence.
Tan was supportive of Dato Onn Jaafar's non-communal Independent of Malaya Party but decided not to cooperate with him when he discovered that the former Umno president was not too generous on the issue of citizenship.
Tan and Umno president Tunku Abdul Rahman were able to forge a partnership between their parties for the Kuala Lumpur municipal election in 1952. The cooperation was found to benefit both parties, and later the MIC, which joined the partnership in 1955, and their respective communities. A more permanent arrangement came into being in the form of the Alliance, the forerunner of the Barisan Nasional.
In 1958, the MCA president was made a Tun for his contribution to his community and the nation. He died on Dec 16, 1960 at the age of 77.
V.T. Sambanthan
Tun V.T. Sambanthan, the fifth Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) president, was born in Sungai Siput in 1919. His father was a rubber estate owner and when he died, Sambanthan inherited the property.
He was sent to India to study at the Annamalai University in Madras. The Indians were fighting for independence then and much of what went on and what was said influenced the young Sambanthan.
When he returned to Malaya, he quickly became involved in the activities of the Indian organisations, especially the MIC which was formed in 1946 by mostly non-Tamil Indian elites.
Sambanthan worked very hard to bring the party to the Tamil workers which formed about 85% of the plantation work force.
In 1955, he was elected MIC president and remained in that position until 1973. By then, the party had joined the Alliance after it had unsuccessfully tried to collaborate with Datuk Onn Jaafar's Independent of Malaya Party.
Sambanthan was able to establish a personal rapport with Umno president Tunku Abdul Rahman and MCA president Tun Tan Cheng Lock. And it was under his leadership that the MIC achieved a stronger foothold within the Alliance.
Sambanthan was Labour Minister in the pre-Independent cabinet. He was subsequently Health Minister (1957-59), Works, Posts and Telecommunications Minister (1959-1971) and National Unity Minister (1972-74).
Sambanthan resigned as MIC president in 1973 and following that, was made chairman of the National Unity Board, which replaced the National Unity Ministry, until 1978.
In 1960, he promoted the idea of a cooperative to help Indian plantation workers. The cooperative bought an estate at Bukit Sidim, and thereafter purchased more estates that were being sold off by British concerns.
The cooperative later became the National Land and Finance Cooperative Society. Sambanthan was at its helm until his death in 1979.
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Road to Independence
The Road to Independence
THE Federation of Malaya gained independence from the British at the stroke of midnight on Aug 30, 1957. In an unofficial ceremony organised by the Alliance, people had gathered at the Selangor Padang to witness the lowering of the Union Jack.
When the clock at the tower of the Selangor Secretariat building struck 12, the British flag was lowered and Tunku Abdul Rahman shouted "Merdeka!" several times. The crowd joined in enthusiastically.
It was a moment pregnant with significance, but Tunku could only make a short speech because his words were quickly drowned out as he was swarmed by people who rushed to the stage to shake his hands.
Malaysia would have been the country's name at the time of independence if Umno's suggestion to the Reid Constitutional Commission had been accepted, but the MCA's suggestion that the name of the newly-independent country be retained as Federation of Malaya, in English, and Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, in Malay, was instead accepted.
So the country's long name became known as Federation of Malaya, and its shortened name Malaya.
In fact, the idea of a wider federation of the states of the Malay peninsula with Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore had been bandied about even before World War II, and was finally and officially mooted in 1961 by Tunku.
In 1961, Tunku accepted the British plan for the formation of Malaysia to merge Malaya with the states of Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore, and consultations between the relevant parties finally reached agreement.
The states of Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore could have come together on Aug 31, 1963 - indeed, that was the agreed plan - had it not been for serious objections from the Philippines and Indonesia.
Because of their allegations that Malaysia was "a neo-colonialist plot", the United Nations (UN) decided to conduct an enquiry to resolve the issue by verifying the wishes of Sabahans and Sarawakians. Hence, the new federation's proclamation had to be deferred.
Sabah and Singapore, however, decided to cast off their colonial yoke as scheduled on Aug 31. But Sarawak, due to its internal politics, couldn't and so had to wait for the UN report which officially declared that the people of Sabah and Sarawak opted to join Malaysia.
The new federation was proclaimed on Sept 16. It brought to a close more than 100 years of British dominance in the three states but Singapore left the federation in 1965.
Nationalistic fervour for Malaya's independence gained momentum after World War II.
After the war, tired of the charade of "indirect rule", the British imposed direct rule by making the whole peninsula a colony, calling it the Malayan Union. Sabah and Sarawak also became separate colonies.
The Malay Rulers, with whom the British signed treaties, quickly realised they had been dispossessed of their country and reduced to being religious heads.
Instead of being protected, they had been betrayed, screamed the Malay leaders. And coming on the heels of the three-week "reign of terror" under the communist guerillas during the interregnum that followed the Japanese surrender on Aug 15, 1945 and the arrival of the British re-occupation force in early September, the Malays rallied.
Mass demonstrations were held and the demonstrators were even able to prevent their rulers from attending the installation ceremony of the new colony's governor.
The formation of the Alliance
Many Malay parties and organisations participated in these demonstrations, and most of them later amalgamated into the United Malays National Organisation (Umno), led by its first president, Datuk Onn Jaafar. However, several Malay nationalist groups had struggled for independence before the war. A few of these groups, which included the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) banded together under the organisation Kesatuan Raayat Semenanjung - or Keris for short - and worked to obtain Japan's support for Malaya's independence. Keris was led by Ibrahim Yaacob, Mustapha Hussein and Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy.
KMM had branches all over the country and with their help, Keris was able to establish units in all the states.
Their plan was for them, with Japanese connivance, to take over the country's administration from the Japanese and to prepare to resist the British when they returned. The Japanese played along for a while but eventually refused to hand over power.
Japan's surrender and news of the British's early return scuttled Keris' plans and some leaders went underground while Ibrahim escaped to Indonesia. Some were arrested by the British when they returned while others were able to continue their nationalistic activities until independence.
But like in Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the three-and-a-half-years of painful Japanese Occupation fostered in the people a different attitude towards their colonial masters when they returned.
Britain was no longer the invincible white imperial power they once held in awe; not only were its forces defeated by an Asian power, they were also humiliated.
Immediately after they returned, the British put in place a military administration to restore order.
On April Fool's day, 1946, the Malayan Union, with its offer of generous citizenship rights to non-Malays, was established.
But contrary to general British expectation, it was shortlived. Faced with Malay opposition, the British compromised by establishing a more acceptable system called the Federation of Malaya which came into force on Feb 1, 1948.
Singapore was excluded from this federation because of its large Chinese population. Even in the federation, the Chinese - two thirds of them local-born - formed 45.2% of the six million population. The Malays made up 43.8%, the Indians 10.5%, and others about 0.5%.
Some Chinese who decided to make Malaya their home were unhappy with the less generous citizenship terms offered under the new federal constitution, seeing it as a setback. Under these circumstances, the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) - which launched its armed rebellion following a spate of violence during which three European planters were killed in one day in Sungai Siput, Perak, leading to an emergency being declared - saw an opportunity to win disenchanted Chinese to its side in an attempt to gain control of the country. It was immediately outlawed by the British.
While the emergency was at its height, there was little chance of political development towards achieving self-governance for which the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement was a stepping stone.
But in an effort to win the people's "hearts and mind", the colonial government introduced the "member system" under which nine locals were made members of the government's executive council. The British also promised local elections to allow people to play a more active role in government.
As a result, a number of political parties were formed. The Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) was formed in 1946 following the dissolution of a number of political organisations including the Central Indian Association of Malaya. In 1949, the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) was formed, led by Tan Cheng Lock, Leong Yew Koh and T.H. Tan.
In 1951, Onn left Umno to form the Independent of Malaya Party (IMP) after his proposal to admit non-Malays as Umno members was rejected. His new party received the MIC's support.
On Jan 8, 1952, reacting to the formation of the IMP, Umno and MCA announced that they would be working together in the Kuala Lumpur municipal council elections. Of the 12 seats, the Umno-MCA alliance won nine, IMP two and an independent one.
Disillusioned with the lukewarm support from the non-Malays he was courting, Onn formed a more nationalistic Malay party, Parti Negara. This drove the MIC, then led by its fourth president K.L. Devaser, into the Alliance in 1954.
Confident that the Alliance formula of three-racial parties working together was acceptable to the people, the leaders decided to contest the first federal election in 1955 as one party. The Alliance won 51 of the 52 seats. The Pan-Malayan Islamic Party (PAS) won the remaining seat.
Following the elections, the colonial government asked Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Umno president who succeeded Onn and who was also the Alliance leader, to become Chief Minister and to nominate elected Alliance members as ministers under the new system of self-government.
Soon, preparations were under way for independence. A delegation of government members, party leaders and representatives of the Malay Rulers went to London to work out steps towards achieving Merdeka in 1957. A date was soon decided.
In the meantime, the Alliance government worked hard to end the emergency by Aug 31. But, an amnesty offer to the communists received poor response. So a direct meeting was arranged in Baling between Tunku, Singapore Chief Minister David Marshall and Tan Cheng Lock with CPM secretary-general Chin Peng and his trusted lieutenants.
The talks collapsed after the communists rejected the terms of surrender. However, the failed talks proved to be a propaganda victory of sorts for Tunku and the Alliance leaders.
Meanwhile, a commission of distinguished jurists was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Reid with members from Britain, India, Pakistan and Australia for the all important task of drafting a constitution for an independent Malaya.
On midnight on Aug 30, 1957, the Union Jack was lowered for the last time.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Wednesday, July 18, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
THE Federation of Malaya gained independence from the British at the stroke of midnight on Aug 30, 1957. In an unofficial ceremony organised by the Alliance, people had gathered at the Selangor Padang to witness the lowering of the Union Jack.
When the clock at the tower of the Selangor Secretariat building struck 12, the British flag was lowered and Tunku Abdul Rahman shouted "Merdeka!" several times. The crowd joined in enthusiastically.
It was a moment pregnant with significance, but Tunku could only make a short speech because his words were quickly drowned out as he was swarmed by people who rushed to the stage to shake his hands.
Malaysia would have been the country's name at the time of independence if Umno's suggestion to the Reid Constitutional Commission had been accepted, but the MCA's suggestion that the name of the newly-independent country be retained as Federation of Malaya, in English, and Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, in Malay, was instead accepted.
So the country's long name became known as Federation of Malaya, and its shortened name Malaya.
In fact, the idea of a wider federation of the states of the Malay peninsula with Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore had been bandied about even before World War II, and was finally and officially mooted in 1961 by Tunku.
In 1961, Tunku accepted the British plan for the formation of Malaysia to merge Malaya with the states of Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore, and consultations between the relevant parties finally reached agreement.
The states of Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore could have come together on Aug 31, 1963 - indeed, that was the agreed plan - had it not been for serious objections from the Philippines and Indonesia.
Because of their allegations that Malaysia was "a neo-colonialist plot", the United Nations (UN) decided to conduct an enquiry to resolve the issue by verifying the wishes of Sabahans and Sarawakians. Hence, the new federation's proclamation had to be deferred.
Sabah and Singapore, however, decided to cast off their colonial yoke as scheduled on Aug 31. But Sarawak, due to its internal politics, couldn't and so had to wait for the UN report which officially declared that the people of Sabah and Sarawak opted to join Malaysia.
The new federation was proclaimed on Sept 16. It brought to a close more than 100 years of British dominance in the three states but Singapore left the federation in 1965.
Nationalistic fervour for Malaya's independence gained momentum after World War II.
After the war, tired of the charade of "indirect rule", the British imposed direct rule by making the whole peninsula a colony, calling it the Malayan Union. Sabah and Sarawak also became separate colonies.
The Malay Rulers, with whom the British signed treaties, quickly realised they had been dispossessed of their country and reduced to being religious heads.
Instead of being protected, they had been betrayed, screamed the Malay leaders. And coming on the heels of the three-week "reign of terror" under the communist guerillas during the interregnum that followed the Japanese surrender on Aug 15, 1945 and the arrival of the British re-occupation force in early September, the Malays rallied.
Mass demonstrations were held and the demonstrators were even able to prevent their rulers from attending the installation ceremony of the new colony's governor.
The formation of the Alliance
Many Malay parties and organisations participated in these demonstrations, and most of them later amalgamated into the United Malays National Organisation (Umno), led by its first president, Datuk Onn Jaafar. However, several Malay nationalist groups had struggled for independence before the war. A few of these groups, which included the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) banded together under the organisation Kesatuan Raayat Semenanjung - or Keris for short - and worked to obtain Japan's support for Malaya's independence. Keris was led by Ibrahim Yaacob, Mustapha Hussein and Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy.
KMM had branches all over the country and with their help, Keris was able to establish units in all the states.
Their plan was for them, with Japanese connivance, to take over the country's administration from the Japanese and to prepare to resist the British when they returned. The Japanese played along for a while but eventually refused to hand over power.
Japan's surrender and news of the British's early return scuttled Keris' plans and some leaders went underground while Ibrahim escaped to Indonesia. Some were arrested by the British when they returned while others were able to continue their nationalistic activities until independence.
But like in Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the three-and-a-half-years of painful Japanese Occupation fostered in the people a different attitude towards their colonial masters when they returned.
Britain was no longer the invincible white imperial power they once held in awe; not only were its forces defeated by an Asian power, they were also humiliated.
Immediately after they returned, the British put in place a military administration to restore order.
On April Fool's day, 1946, the Malayan Union, with its offer of generous citizenship rights to non-Malays, was established.
But contrary to general British expectation, it was shortlived. Faced with Malay opposition, the British compromised by establishing a more acceptable system called the Federation of Malaya which came into force on Feb 1, 1948.
Singapore was excluded from this federation because of its large Chinese population. Even in the federation, the Chinese - two thirds of them local-born - formed 45.2% of the six million population. The Malays made up 43.8%, the Indians 10.5%, and others about 0.5%.
Some Chinese who decided to make Malaya their home were unhappy with the less generous citizenship terms offered under the new federal constitution, seeing it as a setback. Under these circumstances, the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) - which launched its armed rebellion following a spate of violence during which three European planters were killed in one day in Sungai Siput, Perak, leading to an emergency being declared - saw an opportunity to win disenchanted Chinese to its side in an attempt to gain control of the country. It was immediately outlawed by the British.
While the emergency was at its height, there was little chance of political development towards achieving self-governance for which the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement was a stepping stone.
But in an effort to win the people's "hearts and mind", the colonial government introduced the "member system" under which nine locals were made members of the government's executive council. The British also promised local elections to allow people to play a more active role in government.
As a result, a number of political parties were formed. The Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) was formed in 1946 following the dissolution of a number of political organisations including the Central Indian Association of Malaya. In 1949, the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) was formed, led by Tan Cheng Lock, Leong Yew Koh and T.H. Tan.
In 1951, Onn left Umno to form the Independent of Malaya Party (IMP) after his proposal to admit non-Malays as Umno members was rejected. His new party received the MIC's support.
On Jan 8, 1952, reacting to the formation of the IMP, Umno and MCA announced that they would be working together in the Kuala Lumpur municipal council elections. Of the 12 seats, the Umno-MCA alliance won nine, IMP two and an independent one.
Disillusioned with the lukewarm support from the non-Malays he was courting, Onn formed a more nationalistic Malay party, Parti Negara. This drove the MIC, then led by its fourth president K.L. Devaser, into the Alliance in 1954.
Confident that the Alliance formula of three-racial parties working together was acceptable to the people, the leaders decided to contest the first federal election in 1955 as one party. The Alliance won 51 of the 52 seats. The Pan-Malayan Islamic Party (PAS) won the remaining seat.
Following the elections, the colonial government asked Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Umno president who succeeded Onn and who was also the Alliance leader, to become Chief Minister and to nominate elected Alliance members as ministers under the new system of self-government.
Soon, preparations were under way for independence. A delegation of government members, party leaders and representatives of the Malay Rulers went to London to work out steps towards achieving Merdeka in 1957. A date was soon decided.
In the meantime, the Alliance government worked hard to end the emergency by Aug 31. But, an amnesty offer to the communists received poor response. So a direct meeting was arranged in Baling between Tunku, Singapore Chief Minister David Marshall and Tan Cheng Lock with CPM secretary-general Chin Peng and his trusted lieutenants.
The talks collapsed after the communists rejected the terms of surrender. However, the failed talks proved to be a propaganda victory of sorts for Tunku and the Alliance leaders.
Meanwhile, a commission of distinguished jurists was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Reid with members from Britain, India, Pakistan and Australia for the all important task of drafting a constitution for an independent Malaya.
On midnight on Aug 30, 1957, the Union Jack was lowered for the last time.
Source: Zainon Ahmad, The Sun, Wednesday, July 18, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
Count Down to 50th Merdeka
Count Down to 50th Merdeka
Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malayan delegation had just returned from the final talks on independence in London when he made this reminder to the people – that they would all have a place in the new independent nation, but not without some compromise and sacrifice on everyone’s part.
This bargain, or social contract, has always been a crucial, and sometimes contentious, part of the nation’s Constitution. The Reid Commission and the Alliance tried hard to take into consideration the different, and at times divergent, concerns on the ground. Each clause in the Constitution was carefully negotiated and crafted. Even so, it was simply impossible to please everyone.
It would be naïve to expect any constitution, more often than not framed under trying circumstances, to be perfect. But despite what the critics say, Malaysia’s Constitution has worked to a large extent. As the nation commemorates the 50th year of independence, the challenge is to ensure that it will continue to work for the generations ahead.
Constitutions reflect politics
“Constitutions are political documents. They reflect the ideals of the time, the raw realities and the workable solutions arrived at by the people who framed them,” said constitutional law expert Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi.
“That cannot be helped. Anywhere in the world, you have to have a constitution that is acceptable to all,” said the Universiti Teknologi Mara law lecturer.
Most nations striving for independence have had to deal with local circumstances that were far from ideal. The framers of the Indian constitution, for example, had to take into consideration the demands of both the Hindu and Muslim communities. They arrived at essentially a secular-democratic model. It might have won the support of many but it could not please everyone. The conflict between the two communities led to the partition of India and the formation of Pakistan at the stroke of midnight on Aug 15, 1947 – almost a decade before Malaya would break free from colonial rule.
The situation in Malaya, though very different, was not ideal either. The Reid Commission had to weigh all the concerns and demands of various powers, communities and organisations. Even Umno, MIC and MCA – which formed the Alliance and played a vital role in presenting the different communities’ concerns and demands to the commission – faced immense pressure from the grassroots to ensure that the constitution would favour their respective communities.
“Circumstances in Malaya then were not ideal,” Shad said. There were nine rulers, a majority Malay community seeking political and economic power and a large minority group pressing for citizenship and other rights such as economic and cultural rights, he said.
To accommodate the different interests, the parties concerned negotiated a bargain. The Constitution would recognise the rulers as constitutional monarchs, the special position of the Malays, Islam as the religion of the state, and Malay its national language. At the same time, it would also safeguard the legitimate interests of the other communities - the non-Malays’ rights to citizenship, language, religion and culture.
This situation was reflected in Tunku’s speech in the Federal Legislative Council in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, 1957:
“Some Malays fear that their special position will not be adequately protected and that as a consequence they will gradually be overwhelmed by the other communities who have come to live in their country.
“Persons of other races, in particular the Chinese, fear, that their gain would be half as much if special privileges are given to the Malays.
“The facts are that unless the Malays are protected there will be no place for them in Malaya ... Again to those of other communities who are nervous about their future, I would say – study closely Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. They will find that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is also required to safeguard their legitimate interests.”
Shad noted that the British would not have left Malaya if the different groups did not prove they could live together. “The British did not want the same problems as with India.”
Something for everyone
The Reid Commission and political leaders’ decisions were not necessarily supported by the grassroots. “It’s an elitist document, drafted by the elites. Some organisations and grassroots thought they were not adequately consulted in the drafting of the document,” he said. “All constitutions face a similar challenge and will not be able to please all parties.”
Still, the Constitution has worked better than those in some other countries. As Shad pointed out, Thailand, for example, has had 14 or more constitutions since its first in 1932. He said the Malaysian Constitution, despite the criticisms, has been able to preserve relative peace and unity.
“The Constitution gave everyone something and to no one everything. Everyone got something in terms of citizenship, cultural pluralism and economic/commercial rights. The constitution did try to walk the middle path.”
In the same 1957 speech upon returning from London, Tunku acknowledged that while it was important to have a constitution that was agreeable to most people, there would come a time when change was required. “Any constitution prepared today is not immutable. It can be changed, modified or improved according to the wishes of the people,” he said.
Since 1957, Shad said, there have been 51 amendment Acts, each with a number of clauses, which make the total number of changes to the Constitution far higher than that.
Safeguarding the Constitution
What is more important is the content or effect of the amendments – how have they changed the constitutional scheme or spirit, and did they erode or strengthen what the Constitution tried to safeguard? For example, Article 8, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds, was amended in 2001 to formally include gender. This is seen as an important milestone in efforts to uphold gender equality.
However, some amendments are deemed to be a setback. Shad said the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1971 significantly changed the fundamental rights which the constitution’s framers tried very hard to protect.
Made in the wake of the May 13, 1969 racial riots, the amendment revised Article 10 - which safeguards freedom of speech – to empower Parliament to pass laws to restrict public discussion on four “sensitive” issues: citizenship; national language and the languages of other communities; special position and privileges of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak and legitimate interests of other communities; and the rulers’ sovereignty.
Shad said there have also been significant changes to facilitate the government’s desire to maintain ethnic balance and dominance. He said the jus soli principle – citizenship determined by place of birth – was removed in 1962. Citizenship would no longer be determined by birth in Malaysia alone but the person also needed to prove having roots in Malaya before Merdeka, he said.
According to Shad, it is “not normal” for a constitution to be amended so extensively.“Some of the changes were triggered by defeats in the courts, which the ruling elites were not prepared to accept.
“It is worrying from the part of constitutionalism. The government of the day must internalise the Constitution and observe the spirit and letter of the Constitution,” he said.
But the Constitution can also be changed without any formal amendment in Parliament. “Judges have changed the horizon of the constitution,” Shad said.“The irinterpretation, misinterpretation, refusal to interpret, reinterpretation or gloss on the law changes the spirit of the constitution.”
He said judges should ensure that the spirit and letter of the supreme law of the land are served and protected.
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malayan delegation had just returned from the final talks on independence in London when he made this reminder to the people – that they would all have a place in the new independent nation, but not without some compromise and sacrifice on everyone’s part.
This bargain, or social contract, has always been a crucial, and sometimes contentious, part of the nation’s Constitution. The Reid Commission and the Alliance tried hard to take into consideration the different, and at times divergent, concerns on the ground. Each clause in the Constitution was carefully negotiated and crafted. Even so, it was simply impossible to please everyone.
It would be naïve to expect any constitution, more often than not framed under trying circumstances, to be perfect. But despite what the critics say, Malaysia’s Constitution has worked to a large extent. As the nation commemorates the 50th year of independence, the challenge is to ensure that it will continue to work for the generations ahead.
Constitutions reflect politics
“Constitutions are political documents. They reflect the ideals of the time, the raw realities and the workable solutions arrived at by the people who framed them,” said constitutional law expert Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi.
“That cannot be helped. Anywhere in the world, you have to have a constitution that is acceptable to all,” said the Universiti Teknologi Mara law lecturer.
Most nations striving for independence have had to deal with local circumstances that were far from ideal. The framers of the Indian constitution, for example, had to take into consideration the demands of both the Hindu and Muslim communities. They arrived at essentially a secular-democratic model. It might have won the support of many but it could not please everyone. The conflict between the two communities led to the partition of India and the formation of Pakistan at the stroke of midnight on Aug 15, 1947 – almost a decade before Malaya would break free from colonial rule.
The situation in Malaya, though very different, was not ideal either. The Reid Commission had to weigh all the concerns and demands of various powers, communities and organisations. Even Umno, MIC and MCA – which formed the Alliance and played a vital role in presenting the different communities’ concerns and demands to the commission – faced immense pressure from the grassroots to ensure that the constitution would favour their respective communities.
“Circumstances in Malaya then were not ideal,” Shad said. There were nine rulers, a majority Malay community seeking political and economic power and a large minority group pressing for citizenship and other rights such as economic and cultural rights, he said.
To accommodate the different interests, the parties concerned negotiated a bargain. The Constitution would recognise the rulers as constitutional monarchs, the special position of the Malays, Islam as the religion of the state, and Malay its national language. At the same time, it would also safeguard the legitimate interests of the other communities - the non-Malays’ rights to citizenship, language, religion and culture.
This situation was reflected in Tunku’s speech in the Federal Legislative Council in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, 1957:
“Some Malays fear that their special position will not be adequately protected and that as a consequence they will gradually be overwhelmed by the other communities who have come to live in their country.
“Persons of other races, in particular the Chinese, fear, that their gain would be half as much if special privileges are given to the Malays.
“The facts are that unless the Malays are protected there will be no place for them in Malaya ... Again to those of other communities who are nervous about their future, I would say – study closely Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. They will find that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is also required to safeguard their legitimate interests.”
Shad noted that the British would not have left Malaya if the different groups did not prove they could live together. “The British did not want the same problems as with India.”
Something for everyone
The Reid Commission and political leaders’ decisions were not necessarily supported by the grassroots. “It’s an elitist document, drafted by the elites. Some organisations and grassroots thought they were not adequately consulted in the drafting of the document,” he said. “All constitutions face a similar challenge and will not be able to please all parties.”
Still, the Constitution has worked better than those in some other countries. As Shad pointed out, Thailand, for example, has had 14 or more constitutions since its first in 1932. He said the Malaysian Constitution, despite the criticisms, has been able to preserve relative peace and unity.
“The Constitution gave everyone something and to no one everything. Everyone got something in terms of citizenship, cultural pluralism and economic/commercial rights. The constitution did try to walk the middle path.”
In the same 1957 speech upon returning from London, Tunku acknowledged that while it was important to have a constitution that was agreeable to most people, there would come a time when change was required. “Any constitution prepared today is not immutable. It can be changed, modified or improved according to the wishes of the people,” he said.
Since 1957, Shad said, there have been 51 amendment Acts, each with a number of clauses, which make the total number of changes to the Constitution far higher than that.
Safeguarding the Constitution
What is more important is the content or effect of the amendments – how have they changed the constitutional scheme or spirit, and did they erode or strengthen what the Constitution tried to safeguard? For example, Article 8, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds, was amended in 2001 to formally include gender. This is seen as an important milestone in efforts to uphold gender equality.
However, some amendments are deemed to be a setback. Shad said the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1971 significantly changed the fundamental rights which the constitution’s framers tried very hard to protect.
Made in the wake of the May 13, 1969 racial riots, the amendment revised Article 10 - which safeguards freedom of speech – to empower Parliament to pass laws to restrict public discussion on four “sensitive” issues: citizenship; national language and the languages of other communities; special position and privileges of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak and legitimate interests of other communities; and the rulers’ sovereignty.
Shad said there have also been significant changes to facilitate the government’s desire to maintain ethnic balance and dominance. He said the jus soli principle – citizenship determined by place of birth – was removed in 1962. Citizenship would no longer be determined by birth in Malaysia alone but the person also needed to prove having roots in Malaya before Merdeka, he said.
According to Shad, it is “not normal” for a constitution to be amended so extensively.“Some of the changes were triggered by defeats in the courts, which the ruling elites were not prepared to accept.
“It is worrying from the part of constitutionalism. The government of the day must internalise the Constitution and observe the spirit and letter of the Constitution,” he said.
But the Constitution can also be changed without any formal amendment in Parliament. “Judges have changed the horizon of the constitution,” Shad said.“The irinterpretation, misinterpretation, refusal to interpret, reinterpretation or gloss on the law changes the spirit of the constitution.”
He said judges should ensure that the spirit and letter of the supreme law of the land are served and protected.
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Major Changes to The Constitution
Major Changes to The Constitution
The Constitution has been called a nation’s “document of destiny” and “national charter” – terms that reflect the importance of the supreme law of the land.
Like a legally binding contract, any amendment assumes fundamental significance and hence, should not be easily done.
That said, changing political, economic and social circumstances have created the need to amend the original contract – some for justifiable reasons, while others are more controversial.
For example, when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaya to form Malaysia in 1963, the Malaysia Act was passed in Parliament to amend the Constitution to provide for the name change and the inclusion of the three new states.
More controversial were the 1993 amendments that limited the monarchy’s power, stripping the nine hereditary state rulers of immunity from prosecution. This came about after an incident where the then Sultan of Johor allegedly assaulted a sports coach.
Malaysia’s Federal Constitution has been altered extensively since our independence in 1957.
Up to early this year, there have been 51 amendment Acts, said constitutional law expert Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi.
Each amendment involved a number of clauses, and if these are used to measure the extent of constitutional revision, there have been about 700 changes or “strokes of the pen” since the constitution came into force, said the Universiti Teknologi Mara law lecturer.
H.P. Lee wrote in the chapter “The Process of Constitutional Change” in The Constitution of Malaysia - Its Development: 1957-1977: “In subscribing to the adage that a constitution which cannot bend will ultimately be broken, one must also be aware of a constitution which is extremely easy to amend for it may turn out to be worse than having no constitution at all.”
He observed that some of the more fundamental amendments to the Malaysian Constitution has led to “a truncation of safeguards which had been considered by the Reid Commission as vital for the growth of a viable democratic nation”.
The provision to amend the Constitution falls under Article 159. The Reid Commission framed it in such as way that an amendment would not be too difficult to the extent of frustrating the need for amendment, but at the same time, not too easy that it would end up weakening our constitutional safeguards.
The constitution can be altered through an amendment Act supported by two-thirds of the members of Parliament.
Sensitive Matters Amendment
One of the most controversial amendments in Malaysia’s Constitution is the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1971, which came in the wake of the May 13, 1969 racial riots.
Known as the “Sensitive Matters Amendment,” it revised Article 10 – which safeguards freedom of speech – to empower Parliament to pass laws to restrict public discussion on four “sensitive” issues: citizenship; the national language and the languages of other communities; the special position and privileges of the Malays and natives of the Borneo states, and the legitimate interests of other communities; and the rulers’ sovereignty.
Before the Act, the Conference of Rulers’ consent was required only for amendments to provisions related to the rulers, and the special rights and privileges of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities.
As a result of the Act, consent was also required for other provisions, such as Article 10 (freedom of speech), Article 63 (privileges of Parliament), Article 72(privileges of the state legislative assembly) and Article 152 (national language).
Article 153 originally provided for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be the guardian of the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities. It also empowered him to ensure that a reasonable proportion of opportunities was reserved for the Malays in public service, education, and for permits and licences.
The 1971 amendment allowed the natives of the Borneo states to have the same status as the Malays.
It also empowered the Agong to direct any institution of higher learning to reserve a reasonable proportion of places for the Malays and natives, should the number of places be less than the number of qualified candidates.
Judiciary
Another milestone in the Constitution’s evolution was the amendment to Article 121 in 1998, which effectively put the judiciary under Parliament’s influence. The attorney-general was also empowered to determine the courts for cases to be heard.
To the legal fraternity and civil society, this eroded the judiciary’s autonomy and weakened the separation of powers between the three branches of government – the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.
The amendment came in the wake of a series of court cases where the executive accused the judiciary of encroaching on its powers. These cases included a court ruling overturning the government’s decision to revoke a foreign correspondent’s work permit, judicial reviews of ministerial decisions such as the award of the North South Highway project to UEM, and the declaration of Umno as illegal following a dispute over the party’s election in 1987.
Then Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas, and several judges, wrote a letter to the King about the efforts to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. He was charged with writing the letter without the approval of all the judges and displaying bias against the government, and was dismissed in August 1988.
Five Supreme Court judges who objected to the tribunal set up to decide Salleh’s fate were suspended. They were the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Salleh and Datuk George Seah.
After Salleh’s dismissal, a second tribunal was convened to deal with the five judges, resulting in the dismissal of Wan Suleiman and Seah, while the others were acquitted.
Another amendment in 1988 resulted in Article 121 (1)(A), which stipulated a separation of jurisdictions between the civil and syariah courts, whereby the former would have no say over any matter under the syariah court’s purview.
“The amendment left many unanswered questions. It was done with good intentions so that only lawyers trained in syariah law would handle syariah issues,” Shad said.
“However, it does not offer a solution when one party is a non-Muslim, when there are international implications, if it is a constitutional issue and involves a remedy which the syariah court has no right to grant such as habeas corpus and mandamus (the domain of the High Court).”
In recent years, there have been cases where a non-Muslim party to a case has been told to seek recourse at the syariah court.
“The civil courts have started to abdicate or cede jurisdiction when there is the slightest whiff of an Islamic issue,” Shad said.
“The syariah court has broken the dyke, the civil court has looked the other way.”
Source: Cindy Tham, The Sun, Tuesday, July 17, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Constitution has been called a nation’s “document of destiny” and “national charter” – terms that reflect the importance of the supreme law of the land.
Like a legally binding contract, any amendment assumes fundamental significance and hence, should not be easily done.
That said, changing political, economic and social circumstances have created the need to amend the original contract – some for justifiable reasons, while others are more controversial.
For example, when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaya to form Malaysia in 1963, the Malaysia Act was passed in Parliament to amend the Constitution to provide for the name change and the inclusion of the three new states.
More controversial were the 1993 amendments that limited the monarchy’s power, stripping the nine hereditary state rulers of immunity from prosecution. This came about after an incident where the then Sultan of Johor allegedly assaulted a sports coach.
Malaysia’s Federal Constitution has been altered extensively since our independence in 1957.
Up to early this year, there have been 51 amendment Acts, said constitutional law expert Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi.
Each amendment involved a number of clauses, and if these are used to measure the extent of constitutional revision, there have been about 700 changes or “strokes of the pen” since the constitution came into force, said the Universiti Teknologi Mara law lecturer.
H.P. Lee wrote in the chapter “The Process of Constitutional Change” in The Constitution of Malaysia - Its Development: 1957-1977: “In subscribing to the adage that a constitution which cannot bend will ultimately be broken, one must also be aware of a constitution which is extremely easy to amend for it may turn out to be worse than having no constitution at all.”
He observed that some of the more fundamental amendments to the Malaysian Constitution has led to “a truncation of safeguards which had been considered by the Reid Commission as vital for the growth of a viable democratic nation”.
The provision to amend the Constitution falls under Article 159. The Reid Commission framed it in such as way that an amendment would not be too difficult to the extent of frustrating the need for amendment, but at the same time, not too easy that it would end up weakening our constitutional safeguards.
The constitution can be altered through an amendment Act supported by two-thirds of the members of Parliament.
Sensitive Matters Amendment
One of the most controversial amendments in Malaysia’s Constitution is the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1971, which came in the wake of the May 13, 1969 racial riots.
Known as the “Sensitive Matters Amendment,” it revised Article 10 – which safeguards freedom of speech – to empower Parliament to pass laws to restrict public discussion on four “sensitive” issues: citizenship; the national language and the languages of other communities; the special position and privileges of the Malays and natives of the Borneo states, and the legitimate interests of other communities; and the rulers’ sovereignty.
Before the Act, the Conference of Rulers’ consent was required only for amendments to provisions related to the rulers, and the special rights and privileges of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities.
As a result of the Act, consent was also required for other provisions, such as Article 10 (freedom of speech), Article 63 (privileges of Parliament), Article 72(privileges of the state legislative assembly) and Article 152 (national language).
Article 153 originally provided for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be the guardian of the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities. It also empowered him to ensure that a reasonable proportion of opportunities was reserved for the Malays in public service, education, and for permits and licences.
The 1971 amendment allowed the natives of the Borneo states to have the same status as the Malays.
It also empowered the Agong to direct any institution of higher learning to reserve a reasonable proportion of places for the Malays and natives, should the number of places be less than the number of qualified candidates.
Judiciary
Another milestone in the Constitution’s evolution was the amendment to Article 121 in 1998, which effectively put the judiciary under Parliament’s influence. The attorney-general was also empowered to determine the courts for cases to be heard.
To the legal fraternity and civil society, this eroded the judiciary’s autonomy and weakened the separation of powers between the three branches of government – the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.
The amendment came in the wake of a series of court cases where the executive accused the judiciary of encroaching on its powers. These cases included a court ruling overturning the government’s decision to revoke a foreign correspondent’s work permit, judicial reviews of ministerial decisions such as the award of the North South Highway project to UEM, and the declaration of Umno as illegal following a dispute over the party’s election in 1987.
Then Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas, and several judges, wrote a letter to the King about the efforts to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. He was charged with writing the letter without the approval of all the judges and displaying bias against the government, and was dismissed in August 1988.
Five Supreme Court judges who objected to the tribunal set up to decide Salleh’s fate were suspended. They were the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Salleh and Datuk George Seah.
After Salleh’s dismissal, a second tribunal was convened to deal with the five judges, resulting in the dismissal of Wan Suleiman and Seah, while the others were acquitted.
Another amendment in 1988 resulted in Article 121 (1)(A), which stipulated a separation of jurisdictions between the civil and syariah courts, whereby the former would have no say over any matter under the syariah court’s purview.
“The amendment left many unanswered questions. It was done with good intentions so that only lawyers trained in syariah law would handle syariah issues,” Shad said.
“However, it does not offer a solution when one party is a non-Muslim, when there are international implications, if it is a constitutional issue and involves a remedy which the syariah court has no right to grant such as habeas corpus and mandamus (the domain of the High Court).”
In recent years, there have been cases where a non-Muslim party to a case has been told to seek recourse at the syariah court.
“The civil courts have started to abdicate or cede jurisdiction when there is the slightest whiff of an Islamic issue,” Shad said.
“The syariah court has broken the dyke, the civil court has looked the other way.”
Source: Cindy Tham, The Sun, Tuesday, July 17, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Monday, 16 July 2007
Fundamental Rights
Article 3
Islam is the religion of the federation but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.
Article 4
The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Article 5
No person shall be deprived of his/her life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
Article 6
Slavery and forced labour are prohibited.
Article 7
Protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials.
Article 8
All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. Unless authorised by the constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the grounds of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.
Article 9
Freedom of movement - subject to any law relating to security - and prohibition of banishment.
Article 10
Freedom of speech, assembly and association, subject to restrictions relating to security, public order or morality.
Article 11
Every person has the right to profess and practise his/her religion and to propagate it. State and federal laws may control/restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine among Muslims.
Article 12
Right to education, including religious education. The federation and state can help establish and maintain Islamic institutions. No person shall be required to receive instruction in or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his/her own. The religion of a person under 18 is decided by the parent or guardian.
Article 13
Rights to property and adequate compensation in the event of compulsory acquisition.
Source: Federal Constitution (as at Jan 15, 2007)
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Islam is the religion of the federation but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.
Article 4
The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Article 5
No person shall be deprived of his/her life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
Article 6
Slavery and forced labour are prohibited.
Article 7
Protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials.
Article 8
All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. Unless authorised by the constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the grounds of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.
Article 9
Freedom of movement - subject to any law relating to security - and prohibition of banishment.
Article 10
Freedom of speech, assembly and association, subject to restrictions relating to security, public order or morality.
Article 11
Every person has the right to profess and practise his/her religion and to propagate it. State and federal laws may control/restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine among Muslims.
Article 12
Right to education, including religious education. The federation and state can help establish and maintain Islamic institutions. No person shall be required to receive instruction in or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his/her own. The religion of a person under 18 is decided by the parent or guardian.
Article 13
Rights to property and adequate compensation in the event of compulsory acquisition.
Source: Federal Constitution (as at Jan 15, 2007)
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Five Who Framed Our National Charter
Five Who Framed Our National Charter
The task of framing the Malayan Independence Constitution fell on the Reid Commission, a panel of five constitutional experts led by Lord William Reid.
Who were these men and how were they selected?
In setting up the commission, the British Colonial Office considered several options: a British-Malayan commission, a wholly Commonwealth commission or a Malayan commission.
The Alliance proposed an independent commission to review the existing constitution, the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement. It stated in its 1955 election manifesto its preference for a non-Malayan commission, deemed to be in a better position to be impartial.
Other than conveying this to the British, the Alliance also sent out feelers to several Commonwealth governments for suitable candidates.
At the London Conference from Jan 18 to Feb 6, 1956, the Secretary of State, the Alliance and representatives of the rulers of Malaya agreed on the Alliance proposal for a Commonwealth commission.
The British high commissioners in Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan were asked to name suitable candidates.
Tunku Abdul Rahman suggested Sir Ivor Jennings, a fellow undergraduate at Cambridge, and the rulers supported the choice.
The candidates' names were finalised after they were approved by the Alliance and the rulers.
Despite coming from different countries, the five men had one thing in common: their legal training and experience were in Commonwealth parliamentary traditions and constitutions, derived largely from English constitutionalism.
* Lord Reid was 66 when he was made commission chairman. He was previously a politician, legislator and member of the judiciary, a member of Parliament, an Appeal Court judge and the Solicitor-General of Scotland.
* Sir William McKell, 65, was the former Governor-General of Australia. He was also a minister in several cabinets, once a justice minister, and had experience in political administration.
* Justice B. Malik, 61, was a former chief justice of the Allahabad High Court in India.
* Justice Abdul Hamid, 54, was a Pakistan high court judge, and had served as secretary to the Law Ministry in then West Pakistan. He was part of the team that drafted Pakistan's constitution.
* Sir Ivor Jennings, 53, was a former King's Counsel and Cambridge University vice-chancellor who had published works on constitutional matters.
In The Making of the Malayan Constitution, Joseph Fernando observed that, "The majority of the members of the Reid Commission were proponents of liberal values and democratic norms."
Source: Cindy Tham, The Sun, Monday, July 16, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The task of framing the Malayan Independence Constitution fell on the Reid Commission, a panel of five constitutional experts led by Lord William Reid.
Who were these men and how were they selected?
In setting up the commission, the British Colonial Office considered several options: a British-Malayan commission, a wholly Commonwealth commission or a Malayan commission.
The Alliance proposed an independent commission to review the existing constitution, the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement. It stated in its 1955 election manifesto its preference for a non-Malayan commission, deemed to be in a better position to be impartial.
Other than conveying this to the British, the Alliance also sent out feelers to several Commonwealth governments for suitable candidates.
At the London Conference from Jan 18 to Feb 6, 1956, the Secretary of State, the Alliance and representatives of the rulers of Malaya agreed on the Alliance proposal for a Commonwealth commission.
The British high commissioners in Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan were asked to name suitable candidates.
Tunku Abdul Rahman suggested Sir Ivor Jennings, a fellow undergraduate at Cambridge, and the rulers supported the choice.
The candidates' names were finalised after they were approved by the Alliance and the rulers.
Despite coming from different countries, the five men had one thing in common: their legal training and experience were in Commonwealth parliamentary traditions and constitutions, derived largely from English constitutionalism.
* Lord Reid was 66 when he was made commission chairman. He was previously a politician, legislator and member of the judiciary, a member of Parliament, an Appeal Court judge and the Solicitor-General of Scotland.
* Sir William McKell, 65, was the former Governor-General of Australia. He was also a minister in several cabinets, once a justice minister, and had experience in political administration.
* Justice B. Malik, 61, was a former chief justice of the Allahabad High Court in India.
* Justice Abdul Hamid, 54, was a Pakistan high court judge, and had served as secretary to the Law Ministry in then West Pakistan. He was part of the team that drafted Pakistan's constitution.
* Sir Ivor Jennings, 53, was a former King's Counsel and Cambridge University vice-chancellor who had published works on constitutional matters.
In The Making of the Malayan Constitution, Joseph Fernando observed that, "The majority of the members of the Reid Commission were proponents of liberal values and democratic norms."
Source: Cindy Tham, The Sun, Monday, July 16, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Malayan Independence Constitution
The Malayan Independence Constitution
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia was first known as the Malayan Independence Constitution - aptly named for a nation that had just gained independence from colonial rule. The Reid Commission, comprising five constitutional experts from Commonwealth nations, was tasked with framing this important covenant.
As Joseph Fernando observed in The Making of the Malayan Constitution, "Constitutions tend to reflect the ideas, values and beliefs of the framers and of a society at a given time."
At the time the Constitution was drafted, Malaya was already a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, and each community was concerned about its rights and place in the nation.
The Malays wanted to preserve their special position on the land while the other communities wanted citizenship and the right to practise their culture and prosper on the land as well.
The commission recognised that they had to take these into consideration as they worked on the constitution.
"They did not attempt to introduce any radical or revolutionary changes, focusing instead on achieving a compromise between the conflicting and sometimes extreme demands of Malaya's plural society," Fernando wrote.
"The sum of their efforts was a conservative and democratically inclined constitution which retained a large measure of continuity with the past while anticipating problems of the future."
The task at hand
The commission held its first full meeting on June 30, 1956. During the ensuing months, it held private hearings with different organisations and political parties in Malaya.
It collected 131 memoranda and held more than 100 hearings with representatives from across Malayan society: political parties, communal organisations, chambers of commerce, unions, business organisations and individuals.
After collecting information, the commission went to Rome, Italy, in November 1956 to draft the Constitution. The final draft - the fifth version agreed by commission members - was presented to the British government in February, 1957.
"Throughout the commission's work in Malaya and Rome, they made a conscious and visible effort to distance themselves from the Colonial Office," Fernando wrote. "The commission's desire to undertake the publishing of its report on its own in Rome, and to transmit copies of the report simultaneously to the British government and the rulers was intended to stress their independent status."
Issues and challenges
The commission's terms of reference included to:
Provide for a strong central or federal government while at the same time ensure a measure of autonomy for the states; and
Provide for common nationality, safeguarding the Malays' special position and the other communities' legitimate interests.
For the first task, the commission formulated a system to distribute
legislative power and financial resources, which was suitable to the political and economic conditions.
This system would have a strong central government, which had the power to legislate, determine policies and handle taxation.
Meanwhile, the states were given powers in certain areas. They also had a measure of financial autonomy and were guaranteed steady income through grants-in-aid.
The second task was probably tougher, requiring more care and discernment. The commission adopted most of the proposals in the memorandum submitted by the Alliance, which comprised Umno, MCA and MIC.
The commission tried to strike a balance between safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities.
"Since the first obligation threatened the other obligation, the commission attempted to provide checks and balances in the constitution against the provision becoming a permanent disability to the non-Malays.
"Hence the inclusion of an elaborate bill of rights (Articles 3-13) to guarantee the basic rights of the individual," Fernando wrote.
"In doing so, the commission intended to provide for the growth of a modern democratic polity based firmly on principles of modern constitutionalism and democratic traditions."
The commission borrowed heavily from the provisions of fundamental rights in the Indian constitution and adopted the style of phrasing used in the American Bill of Rights.
The commission also recognised that there was a constitutional precedent for the Malay special position in the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement, and agreed that the provisions should continue for some time to assist the Malays, socially and economically.
It framed the provisions with in-built safeguards to ensure non-Malays would not be permanently disabled - adopting the earlier Alliance suggestion that the privileges be reviewed 15 years after independence.
Although the Alliance had proposed that Islam be made the official religion, the commission turned it down, citing the rulers' request to retain religion as a state matter. The commission was also concerned that there was a contradiction between the Alliance declaration, in its memorandum, that Malaya would be a secular state, and a provision for Islam to be the federation's official religion.
However, these changed following protests from some Malays. When the Working Party - comprising the British administrators, the Alliance and the rulers - reviewed the draft constitution, Islam was made the federation's religion, the 15-year time frame was dropped, and it was agreed instead that the special position provision be reviewed from time to time.
The initial provision for multilingualism in the legislature was also dropped but provisions were put in place to safeguard the use and teaching of the Chinese and Tamil languages.
Citizenship was granted to those born in the federation from Merdeka Day. Those who were born before that and foreign nationals could obtain citizenship through registration or naturalisation by taking an Oath of Allegiance. Those with dual citizenship would have to choose which nation they wanted to pledge allegiance to.
The final contract that came into force on Aug 31, 1957 was the result of much research, negotiation and accommodation, all in the hopes of arriving at a common ground that would work for all in the long term.
Sources: The Making of the Malayan Constitution by Joseph Fernando, Malaysia--The Road to Independence by Tunku Abdul Rahman, The Constitution of Malaysia - Its Development: 1957-1977 edited by Tun Mohamed Suffian, H.P. Lee and F.A. Trindade.
Source: Cindy Tham, The Sun, Monday, July 16, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia was first known as the Malayan Independence Constitution - aptly named for a nation that had just gained independence from colonial rule. The Reid Commission, comprising five constitutional experts from Commonwealth nations, was tasked with framing this important covenant.
As Joseph Fernando observed in The Making of the Malayan Constitution, "Constitutions tend to reflect the ideas, values and beliefs of the framers and of a society at a given time."
At the time the Constitution was drafted, Malaya was already a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, and each community was concerned about its rights and place in the nation.
The Malays wanted to preserve their special position on the land while the other communities wanted citizenship and the right to practise their culture and prosper on the land as well.
The commission recognised that they had to take these into consideration as they worked on the constitution.
"They did not attempt to introduce any radical or revolutionary changes, focusing instead on achieving a compromise between the conflicting and sometimes extreme demands of Malaya's plural society," Fernando wrote.
"The sum of their efforts was a conservative and democratically inclined constitution which retained a large measure of continuity with the past while anticipating problems of the future."
The task at hand
The commission held its first full meeting on June 30, 1956. During the ensuing months, it held private hearings with different organisations and political parties in Malaya.
It collected 131 memoranda and held more than 100 hearings with representatives from across Malayan society: political parties, communal organisations, chambers of commerce, unions, business organisations and individuals.
After collecting information, the commission went to Rome, Italy, in November 1956 to draft the Constitution. The final draft - the fifth version agreed by commission members - was presented to the British government in February, 1957.
"Throughout the commission's work in Malaya and Rome, they made a conscious and visible effort to distance themselves from the Colonial Office," Fernando wrote. "The commission's desire to undertake the publishing of its report on its own in Rome, and to transmit copies of the report simultaneously to the British government and the rulers was intended to stress their independent status."
Issues and challenges
The commission's terms of reference included to:
Provide for a strong central or federal government while at the same time ensure a measure of autonomy for the states; and
Provide for common nationality, safeguarding the Malays' special position and the other communities' legitimate interests.
For the first task, the commission formulated a system to distribute
legislative power and financial resources, which was suitable to the political and economic conditions.
This system would have a strong central government, which had the power to legislate, determine policies and handle taxation.
Meanwhile, the states were given powers in certain areas. They also had a measure of financial autonomy and were guaranteed steady income through grants-in-aid.
The second task was probably tougher, requiring more care and discernment. The commission adopted most of the proposals in the memorandum submitted by the Alliance, which comprised Umno, MCA and MIC.
The commission tried to strike a balance between safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities.
"Since the first obligation threatened the other obligation, the commission attempted to provide checks and balances in the constitution against the provision becoming a permanent disability to the non-Malays.
"Hence the inclusion of an elaborate bill of rights (Articles 3-13) to guarantee the basic rights of the individual," Fernando wrote.
"In doing so, the commission intended to provide for the growth of a modern democratic polity based firmly on principles of modern constitutionalism and democratic traditions."
The commission borrowed heavily from the provisions of fundamental rights in the Indian constitution and adopted the style of phrasing used in the American Bill of Rights.
The commission also recognised that there was a constitutional precedent for the Malay special position in the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement, and agreed that the provisions should continue for some time to assist the Malays, socially and economically.
It framed the provisions with in-built safeguards to ensure non-Malays would not be permanently disabled - adopting the earlier Alliance suggestion that the privileges be reviewed 15 years after independence.
Although the Alliance had proposed that Islam be made the official religion, the commission turned it down, citing the rulers' request to retain religion as a state matter. The commission was also concerned that there was a contradiction between the Alliance declaration, in its memorandum, that Malaya would be a secular state, and a provision for Islam to be the federation's official religion.
However, these changed following protests from some Malays. When the Working Party - comprising the British administrators, the Alliance and the rulers - reviewed the draft constitution, Islam was made the federation's religion, the 15-year time frame was dropped, and it was agreed instead that the special position provision be reviewed from time to time.
The initial provision for multilingualism in the legislature was also dropped but provisions were put in place to safeguard the use and teaching of the Chinese and Tamil languages.
Citizenship was granted to those born in the federation from Merdeka Day. Those who were born before that and foreign nationals could obtain citizenship through registration or naturalisation by taking an Oath of Allegiance. Those with dual citizenship would have to choose which nation they wanted to pledge allegiance to.
The final contract that came into force on Aug 31, 1957 was the result of much research, negotiation and accommodation, all in the hopes of arriving at a common ground that would work for all in the long term.
Sources: The Making of the Malayan Constitution by Joseph Fernando, Malaysia--The Road to Independence by Tunku Abdul Rahman, The Constitution of Malaysia - Its Development: 1957-1977 edited by Tun Mohamed Suffian, H.P. Lee and F.A. Trindade.
Source: Cindy Tham, The Sun, Monday, July 16, 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Father of Malay Nationalism
Father of Malay Nationalism
Datuk Onn Jaafar (1898-1962) was the son of a former Johor mentri besar and became well known before World War II as a fearless newspaper editor with outspoken views. He clashed publicly with Sultan Ibrahim of Johor over several issues, and for this, he was exiled to Singapore.
After a few years, he was pardoned and returned to Johor, where he spent most of his life in government service, rising to become mentri besar in 1946. While holding this post, which he relinquished in 1950, again over disagreements with Sultan Ibrahim, he initiated the formation of the United Malays National Organisation or Umno.
In 1946, when Britain announced the formation of the Malayan Union, which restricted the Malay rulers' sovereignty and Malay special privileges, Onn wrote a letter to the Malay newspapers inviting 41 Malay associations throughout the peninsula to attend the Pan-Malayan Congress on March 1, 1946 to coordinate protests against the Malayan Union. The congress decided to form a national organisation to protect Malay interests, and elected Onn as its first president.
Onn decided to call the organisation the United Malays National Organisation because he thought the name spelt unity, similar to that of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) which had just been formed in 1945. Umno has remained the organisation's popular name instead of its Malay name, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu.
Onn's achievement in Umno's formation can be understood only when it is realised that no single unified pan-Malayan nationalist movement had ever existed before the war since previous efforts had repeatedly failed. This is why Onn is today justifiably regarded as "the father of Malay nationalism".
It was during Umno's campaign against the Malayan Union that he led its rallies and demonstrations throughout the peninsula and emerged as a skilled orator. He articulated the Malays' sense of nationalism so well that most Malays found at least some of their ideals in his thinking.
Although a volatile personality, given to temper tantrums, he was nevertheless charismatic, brimming with ideas and confidence, and initiated a Malay boycott of the British administration and invented the popular slogan, "Hidup Melayu!" or "Long Live the Malays!".
He persuaded the Malay rulers to turn their backs on the "unjust treaties" surrendering their sovereignty and Malay special privileges, which they had signed with Sir Harold MacMichael, the British government's plenipotentiary. It was these treaties which had allowed the British government to form the Malayan Union.
After Umno and the Malay rulers succeeded in persuading the British administration to rescind the Malayan Union, Onn emerged as the Malays' undisputed leader until he resigned in 1951 as Umno president over the party's refusal to accept his suggestion to open its doors to non-Malays. He had come to believe that the only route to independence would be through the creation of a multi-ethnic party.
He would have led Malaya to independence and become Malaya's first prime minister if he had not been impatient with Umno and resigned from the party.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Datuk Onn Jaafar (1898-1962) was the son of a former Johor mentri besar and became well known before World War II as a fearless newspaper editor with outspoken views. He clashed publicly with Sultan Ibrahim of Johor over several issues, and for this, he was exiled to Singapore.
After a few years, he was pardoned and returned to Johor, where he spent most of his life in government service, rising to become mentri besar in 1946. While holding this post, which he relinquished in 1950, again over disagreements with Sultan Ibrahim, he initiated the formation of the United Malays National Organisation or Umno.
In 1946, when Britain announced the formation of the Malayan Union, which restricted the Malay rulers' sovereignty and Malay special privileges, Onn wrote a letter to the Malay newspapers inviting 41 Malay associations throughout the peninsula to attend the Pan-Malayan Congress on March 1, 1946 to coordinate protests against the Malayan Union. The congress decided to form a national organisation to protect Malay interests, and elected Onn as its first president.
Onn decided to call the organisation the United Malays National Organisation because he thought the name spelt unity, similar to that of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) which had just been formed in 1945. Umno has remained the organisation's popular name instead of its Malay name, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu.
Onn's achievement in Umno's formation can be understood only when it is realised that no single unified pan-Malayan nationalist movement had ever existed before the war since previous efforts had repeatedly failed. This is why Onn is today justifiably regarded as "the father of Malay nationalism".
It was during Umno's campaign against the Malayan Union that he led its rallies and demonstrations throughout the peninsula and emerged as a skilled orator. He articulated the Malays' sense of nationalism so well that most Malays found at least some of their ideals in his thinking.
Although a volatile personality, given to temper tantrums, he was nevertheless charismatic, brimming with ideas and confidence, and initiated a Malay boycott of the British administration and invented the popular slogan, "Hidup Melayu!" or "Long Live the Malays!".
He persuaded the Malay rulers to turn their backs on the "unjust treaties" surrendering their sovereignty and Malay special privileges, which they had signed with Sir Harold MacMichael, the British government's plenipotentiary. It was these treaties which had allowed the British government to form the Malayan Union.
After Umno and the Malay rulers succeeded in persuading the British administration to rescind the Malayan Union, Onn emerged as the Malays' undisputed leader until he resigned in 1951 as Umno president over the party's refusal to accept his suggestion to open its doors to non-Malays. He had come to believe that the only route to independence would be through the creation of a multi-ethnic party.
He would have led Malaya to independence and become Malaya's first prime minister if he had not been impatient with Umno and resigned from the party.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Radical Reforms Under The Malayan Union
Radical Reforms Under The Malayan Union
The Malayan Union scheme, which the British drafted in London during World War II, comprised a set of radical reforms that attempted to inculcate a sense of nationhood while at the same time, alter the country's pre-war political structure.
The proposals, outlined in a government White Paper, were presented to the British Parliament in January 1946 following the return to London of the government's special representative, Sir Harold MacMichael, after he had successfully concluded with each Malay ruler an agreement which transferred full jurisdiction to the British Crown.
Firstly, the scheme consolidated into one single entity all the former nine Federated and Unfederated Malay States together with the British Straits Settlements of Malacca and Penang but excluded Singapore, which became a separate colony. The latter was detached because of its strategic importance and its mainly Chinese population, which would upset the population balance.
A British governor would head the Malayan Union who would in turn appoint his own legislative council, and an advisory council of Malay rulers which would decide on matters related to Islam.
Since the British Crown had jurisdiction over the Malay states, the British government or Parliament could legislate for all the states under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.
The scheme would introduce a Malayan Union citizenship to anyone born in the country, who was over the age of 18 and had lived in Malaya for more than ten years.
Only Malayan Union citizens would be admitted to public office or membership of central and local councils. However, this citizenship would not connote "nationality" as the Malayan Union would not yet be an independent or even self-governing state.
To Umno and the Malay rulers, the scheme meant that Britain had abrogated the old treaties with the rulers, under which each ruler would accept British advice on all matters except on Islam and Malay customs. They argued that this meant that the Malay states were now being annexed by Britain. They also opposed equal rights for all races, seeing this as a threat to Malay special privileges.
For the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, jus soli citizenship, determined by place of birth, was an attractive offer, but they did not show enough enthusiasm and support for it. In contrast, the Malay opposition to the Malayan Union was stronger and more successful.
As a result, the British government finally withdrew the plan and replaced it with the Federation of Malaya scheme, which restored Malay sovereignty and privileges and, under pressure from the Malay rulers and Umno, withdrew the citizenship offer by jus soli and imposed more restrictive conditions for non-Malay citizenship.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Malayan Union scheme, which the British drafted in London during World War II, comprised a set of radical reforms that attempted to inculcate a sense of nationhood while at the same time, alter the country's pre-war political structure.
The proposals, outlined in a government White Paper, were presented to the British Parliament in January 1946 following the return to London of the government's special representative, Sir Harold MacMichael, after he had successfully concluded with each Malay ruler an agreement which transferred full jurisdiction to the British Crown.
Firstly, the scheme consolidated into one single entity all the former nine Federated and Unfederated Malay States together with the British Straits Settlements of Malacca and Penang but excluded Singapore, which became a separate colony. The latter was detached because of its strategic importance and its mainly Chinese population, which would upset the population balance.
A British governor would head the Malayan Union who would in turn appoint his own legislative council, and an advisory council of Malay rulers which would decide on matters related to Islam.
Since the British Crown had jurisdiction over the Malay states, the British government or Parliament could legislate for all the states under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.
The scheme would introduce a Malayan Union citizenship to anyone born in the country, who was over the age of 18 and had lived in Malaya for more than ten years.
Only Malayan Union citizens would be admitted to public office or membership of central and local councils. However, this citizenship would not connote "nationality" as the Malayan Union would not yet be an independent or even self-governing state.
To Umno and the Malay rulers, the scheme meant that Britain had abrogated the old treaties with the rulers, under which each ruler would accept British advice on all matters except on Islam and Malay customs. They argued that this meant that the Malay states were now being annexed by Britain. They also opposed equal rights for all races, seeing this as a threat to Malay special privileges.
For the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, jus soli citizenship, determined by place of birth, was an attractive offer, but they did not show enough enthusiasm and support for it. In contrast, the Malay opposition to the Malayan Union was stronger and more successful.
As a result, the British government finally withdrew the plan and replaced it with the Federation of Malaya scheme, which restored Malay sovereignty and privileges and, under pressure from the Malay rulers and Umno, withdrew the citizenship offer by jus soli and imposed more restrictive conditions for non-Malay citizenship.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Saturday, 14 July 2007
The Malayan Union and Its Impact
The Malayan Union and Its Impact
The Malayan Union, which the British Labour Government inaugurated in post-war Malaya on April 1, 1945, lasted slightly more than two years. Although it was a short-lived constitutional experiment, it led to dramatic political developments.
In present-day Malaysian history textbooks, the Malayan Union is regarded as having awakened political activity, and heightened ethnic consciousness and nationalism among the peninsula's different ethnic groups.
For the Malays, their opposition to the Malayan Union led to the birth of the United Malays National Organisation or Umno - which was inaugurated on May 11, 1946 in Johor Baru - and the emergence of Datuk Onn Jaafar as its first president.
Umno obtained support from all strata of Malay society in opposing the Malayan Union - the aristocrats, the radical Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (Malay Nationalist Party or MNP), Islamic groups, civil servants, rural leaders like the penghulus (village heads), and even the police and ex-service personnel.
Umno opposed the Malayan Union because it restricted the Malay rulers' powers and Malay special privileges, and granted citizenship and equal rights to non-Malays who qualified on birth, residential and other terms.
Umno demanded a return to the pre-war political structures, set up in the Malay states according to treaties signed with the Malay rulers under which the British "protected" the Malay states and advised the rulers in all matters except Islam and Malay customs.
The protests and demonstrations against the Malayan Union saw Malay women breaking tradition by joining marches and carrying placards. Many Malays wrapped white cloth around their songkok (cap) as a symbol of mourning.
Umno urged Malay civil servants to boycott the Malayan Union government by refusing to carry out any work. Also at Umno's urging, the Malay rulers boycotted Sir Edward Gent's inauguration as Malayan Union governor.
Non-Malays were also prompted to fight for their rights, and organised political parties such as the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) and the Malayan Democratic Union, which came under an umbrella organisation - the All-Malaya Council of Joint Action (AMCJA) - headed by prominent Chinese leader Tan Cheng Lock. Several trade unions and women's groups aligned with the then semi-legal Communist Party of Malaya also joined the AMCJA.
For the first time, politics during the Malayan Union led to the formation of a multi-racial alliance between the non-Malay AMCJA and the Malay-based Pusat Tenaga Raayat (Putera), a coalition under the MNP's leadership that comprised its youth and women wings, and Malay cultural bodies. Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy became Putera-AMCJA president, with Tan as deputy president.
This followed the MNP's departure from Umno over differences regarding Umno's flag. The MNP decided to team up with the AMCJA to fight for an independent United Malaya with equal citizenship for all, and an elected Parliament in which the Malay rulers would become constitutional monarchs. The coalition's parties also agreed that Malay would be the national language, and all citizens would be known as "Melayu" nationals.
The proposed "Melayu" nationality was controversial, but it was quite different from bangsa Melayu and was not a racial but a national identity. The Malays opposed the term "Malayan" because it was associated with the Malayan Union, so Putera's non-Malay partners agreed not to use it. At the same time, the term "Malaysian" did not yet exist. The AMCJA-Putera "People's Constitution" which incorporated these points was a blueprint for Malaya's future.
Many observers were surprised that Chinese and pro-communist groups were willing to make such major concessions to accommodate the MNP's Malay nationalism, and equally surprised that the MNP was willing to accept non-Malays as equal citizens if they demonstrated their loyalty to Malaya.
However, the British government rejected the AMCJA-Putera proposals, and decided to concede instead to the demands of Umno and the Malay rulers. The British were not yet ready to grant self-government and independence and attempted to negotiate a deal that would not endanger its political, economic and military interests.
Umno and the Malay rulers had taken up their grievances with the Colonial Office in London by writing petitions to British members of Parliament and waging a public relations campaign. They received support from prominent former British government officers like Sir Richard Winstedt and Sir Frank Swettenham.
The British finally agreed to the Malay demands for the return of sovereignty to the Malay rulers, and a tightening of citizenship laws for Chinese, Indians and others. In return, Umno and the Malay rulers agreed to the British proposal to set up the Federation of Malaya as a mutually acceptable frame of government to replace the Malayan Union.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
The Malayan Union, which the British Labour Government inaugurated in post-war Malaya on April 1, 1945, lasted slightly more than two years. Although it was a short-lived constitutional experiment, it led to dramatic political developments.
In present-day Malaysian history textbooks, the Malayan Union is regarded as having awakened political activity, and heightened ethnic consciousness and nationalism among the peninsula's different ethnic groups.
For the Malays, their opposition to the Malayan Union led to the birth of the United Malays National Organisation or Umno - which was inaugurated on May 11, 1946 in Johor Baru - and the emergence of Datuk Onn Jaafar as its first president.
Umno obtained support from all strata of Malay society in opposing the Malayan Union - the aristocrats, the radical Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (Malay Nationalist Party or MNP), Islamic groups, civil servants, rural leaders like the penghulus (village heads), and even the police and ex-service personnel.
Umno opposed the Malayan Union because it restricted the Malay rulers' powers and Malay special privileges, and granted citizenship and equal rights to non-Malays who qualified on birth, residential and other terms.
Umno demanded a return to the pre-war political structures, set up in the Malay states according to treaties signed with the Malay rulers under which the British "protected" the Malay states and advised the rulers in all matters except Islam and Malay customs.
The protests and demonstrations against the Malayan Union saw Malay women breaking tradition by joining marches and carrying placards. Many Malays wrapped white cloth around their songkok (cap) as a symbol of mourning.
Umno urged Malay civil servants to boycott the Malayan Union government by refusing to carry out any work. Also at Umno's urging, the Malay rulers boycotted Sir Edward Gent's inauguration as Malayan Union governor.
Non-Malays were also prompted to fight for their rights, and organised political parties such as the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) and the Malayan Democratic Union, which came under an umbrella organisation - the All-Malaya Council of Joint Action (AMCJA) - headed by prominent Chinese leader Tan Cheng Lock. Several trade unions and women's groups aligned with the then semi-legal Communist Party of Malaya also joined the AMCJA.
For the first time, politics during the Malayan Union led to the formation of a multi-racial alliance between the non-Malay AMCJA and the Malay-based Pusat Tenaga Raayat (Putera), a coalition under the MNP's leadership that comprised its youth and women wings, and Malay cultural bodies. Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy became Putera-AMCJA president, with Tan as deputy president.
This followed the MNP's departure from Umno over differences regarding Umno's flag. The MNP decided to team up with the AMCJA to fight for an independent United Malaya with equal citizenship for all, and an elected Parliament in which the Malay rulers would become constitutional monarchs. The coalition's parties also agreed that Malay would be the national language, and all citizens would be known as "Melayu" nationals.
The proposed "Melayu" nationality was controversial, but it was quite different from bangsa Melayu and was not a racial but a national identity. The Malays opposed the term "Malayan" because it was associated with the Malayan Union, so Putera's non-Malay partners agreed not to use it. At the same time, the term "Malaysian" did not yet exist. The AMCJA-Putera "People's Constitution" which incorporated these points was a blueprint for Malaya's future.
Many observers were surprised that Chinese and pro-communist groups were willing to make such major concessions to accommodate the MNP's Malay nationalism, and equally surprised that the MNP was willing to accept non-Malays as equal citizens if they demonstrated their loyalty to Malaya.
However, the British government rejected the AMCJA-Putera proposals, and decided to concede instead to the demands of Umno and the Malay rulers. The British were not yet ready to grant self-government and independence and attempted to negotiate a deal that would not endanger its political, economic and military interests.
Umno and the Malay rulers had taken up their grievances with the Colonial Office in London by writing petitions to British members of Parliament and waging a public relations campaign. They received support from prominent former British government officers like Sir Richard Winstedt and Sir Frank Swettenham.
The British finally agreed to the Malay demands for the return of sovereignty to the Malay rulers, and a tightening of citizenship laws for Chinese, Indians and others. In return, Umno and the Malay rulers agreed to the British proposal to set up the Federation of Malaya as a mutually acceptable frame of government to replace the Malayan Union.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Malaya's Early Freedom Fighter
When the Union Jack was lowered for the last time on the various territories of Malaya, it marked the end of just over a hundred years of British dominance in the country's affairs even though its influence had been felt much longer than that.
Britain took Penang by conquest in 1786. It then obtained Malacca and Singapore by treaties. In 1867, these three territories became the crown colony of the Straits Settlements. To its imperial crown was later added Labuan.
Sarawak and Sabah became British colonies after World War II in 1946. They were previously under the loose suzerainty of the Sultan of Brunei who gave trader James Brooke and a British trading company administrative rights.
The British Chartered Company's attempt to bring the different territorial and tribal chiefs of North Borneo, the area that is now Sabah, under one central administration was resisted every step of the way. One serious challenge was the uprising led by Mat Salleh.
Beginning in 1874, Britain imposed what it called its indirect rule in Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, collectively called the Federated Malay States (FMS) in 1896. If anything, the rule through the various state British Residents, who were ostensibly advisers to the sultans, was more direct than indirect.
In Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Johor, collectively referred to as the Unfederated Malay States (UMS), the various sultans exercised slightly more independence even though they each had a British adviser.
Exercising control over the various entities was the Singapore-based governor of the Straits Settlements. In the FMS, he was high commissioner.
After the war, the British grouped together the Straits Settlements, the FMS and the UMS as one colony which they called Malayan Union. It was shortlived.
Following mass opposition throughout the country, the entity, sans Singapore, became the Federation of Malaya instead.
Generally, British imperial power was hardly challenged. Through the clever use of threat, persuasion and advice, Britain was able to dominate the whole country with just a small military and police presence.
Still, it was occasionally challenged. From time to time, its small police force, spread thinly throughout the country, was called together to deal with uprisings to overthrow foreign rule in the fight for independence and freedom.
Dol Said of Naning
Though not much is heard about him or mentioned in history books, the first man who really fought to be free from British rule and to be left alone to administer his own little territory was Penghulu Dol Said of Naning.
He refused to submit his collection of mukims (provinces) in Malacca to British rule and in 1832, war broke out. Never was such a force ever assembled by the British to bring just one recalcitrant penghulu (chief) to heel.
Thousands of men from various parts of the country, Singapore and India were assembled with all kinds of equipment and armoury to arrest Dol Said. Hundreds of bullock carts were used to transport equipment. Progress through the narrow village footpaths was slow and along the way to Tabuh, the main settlement of Naning, Dol Said had his men set all kinds of booby traps and ambush to discourage the expedition.
In the end, Dol Said was captured, but only after being betrayed by a lieutenant. It was the costliest war ever fought by the colonial power to maintain its prestige and dominance in Malaya.
Datuk Maharaja Lela
In 1875, another huge British force, including soldiers from India and Hongkong, was assembled because the "natives" had actually dared to lay hands on an official of the British monarch: Resident J.W.W. Birch.
Maharaja Lela of Pasir Salak, seen as the uprising's principle leader, and a few other chiefs, decided that one year of British involvement in Perak's affairs, especially one year of Birch - a Victorian disciplinarian - was more than they could tolerate. The British, especially Birch, who was seen as increasingly interfering in local traditions and customs, had to go.
The presence of the British force after Birch's killing was to demonstrate the imperial power's might to deter future challenges to colonial rule. It was a reminder of the immense power behind each British official.
When the force from India and Hongkong arrived, the 150 or so local sepoys had already
completed their task of putting down the uprising and capturing the principle leaders, among them Maharaja Lela and his neighbour from across the Perak river, Datuk Sagor.
The huge force remained on standby in Perak until after a commission determined what happened, tried those arrested, and hanged the ones found to be directly involved in Birch's killing.
Datuk Bahaman, Tok Gajah and Mat Kilau
In Pahang, the British were not actually welcomed with open arms when they moved in and installed a resident there in 1888. A year later, a full-scale rebellion led by the territorial chief of Semantan, Datuk Bahaman, or Orang Kaya Semantan, broke out.
His complaint was that he was losing independence and losing revenue as he could no longer collect taxes, and hence, had diminished dignity and respect. He complained to the sultan that the British had no right to impose their will on Pahang and its people.
A number of other chiefs, among them Tok Gajah and his son Mat Kilau, concurred with him. Fighting broke out after the British decided to send officers and the police to arrest them.
The rebels attacked police stations and seized guns and ammunition. The success of these attacks encouraged thousands of people to join Orang Kaya Semantan. At the rebellion's height in 1892, the British could not be sure whether the sultan was also encouraging the rebels.
The British sent in more people after the rebel leaders and by the year end, most of them fled the state with soldiers and the police in hot pursuit. Many, like Mat Kilau, fled to Kelantan. Mat Kilau surfaced in 1970, but nothing more was heard of the others.
Tok Janggut
Tok Janggut was killed in a fight with the British on
June 25, 1915 in Pasir Putih, Kelantan
In Kelantan, nearly all the chiefs resented the imposition of a British adviser in the state's administration. In particular, the opening of district offices in their territories meant the end of their independence.
Because it was done in the sultan's name, most of the chiefs accepted the move without demur.
But not the Pasir Putih chief, a popular and much-respected man. When he raised the flag of rebellion in 1915, his people rallied behind him.
Another rebellion leader who was always at the forefront of the fighting was Mat Hassan. He had just returned from Mecca and was deemed a religious person.
He was reverently called Tok Janggut, not just because of his white beard, but because of his age - about 60 - and his quiet demeanour. It was said that he was nearly 1.8m tall.
When he and his followers refused to pay taxes, the district office sent a sergeant to arrest him. There is some confusion over what actually happened but the sergeant was stabbed in the chest by Tok Janggut .
Full-scale fighting broke out after Tok Janggut and his followers sacked Pasir Putih and burnt down the district office. Many others joined him, heeding his call that they were fighting in the cause of Islam against the infidel British, but not against the sultan.
As fighting spread and threatened the safety of the Europeans who were opening up plantations in the state, more and more police officers were sent out to arrest him and some of the other rebellion leaders.
Tok Janggut was finally shot and killed, and his body taken to Kota Baru where it was put on public display and later ordered by the sultan to be strung up, upside down, for four hours.
Teachers and writers
Datuk Ahmad Boestaman
The end of violent anti-British uprisings did not mean the end of anti-colonial sentiments among Malayans. They were kept alive by debates and discussions by teachers especially from the Sultan Idris Training College (SITC), established in the 1920s and considered the crucible of political consciousness.
There were also the writers and journalists who wrote in magazines and newspapers such as Neraca, Al-Ikwan, Majlis and Saudara who reminded readers they were still colonised.
Among these were Ibrahim Haji Yaacob (an SITC graduate), Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy, Ishak Muhammad and Datuk Ahmad Boestaman. Through their writings, the nationalistic spirit was kept alive.
In 1937, a group of graduates from SITC and the Malay College in Kuala Kangsar formed a socio-political organisation called Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM). It was patterned on the reformist Young Turks movement led by Turkey's Kemal Ataturk and followed in the footsteps of similar movements in Indonesia.
Its latent goals were freedom and independence from British rule, but outwardly it appeared reformist and radical.
Following the Japanese invasion, most of the KMM leaders were arrested by the British in Singapore for allegedly receiving funds from the Japanese Consulate in exchange for acting as guides and interpreters during the offensive.
After Singapore fell, these leaders were freed by the Japanese and cooperated with their military administration. The Japanese, however, refused to entertain demands for independence and disbanded the KMM.
Upon Japan's defeat, the British yet again detained some KMM leaders for collaborating with the Japanese, but KMM chief Ibrahim Yaacob escaped to Indonesia where he lived in exile.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Britain took Penang by conquest in 1786. It then obtained Malacca and Singapore by treaties. In 1867, these three territories became the crown colony of the Straits Settlements. To its imperial crown was later added Labuan.
Sarawak and Sabah became British colonies after World War II in 1946. They were previously under the loose suzerainty of the Sultan of Brunei who gave trader James Brooke and a British trading company administrative rights.
The British Chartered Company's attempt to bring the different territorial and tribal chiefs of North Borneo, the area that is now Sabah, under one central administration was resisted every step of the way. One serious challenge was the uprising led by Mat Salleh.
Beginning in 1874, Britain imposed what it called its indirect rule in Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, collectively called the Federated Malay States (FMS) in 1896. If anything, the rule through the various state British Residents, who were ostensibly advisers to the sultans, was more direct than indirect.
In Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Johor, collectively referred to as the Unfederated Malay States (UMS), the various sultans exercised slightly more independence even though they each had a British adviser.
Exercising control over the various entities was the Singapore-based governor of the Straits Settlements. In the FMS, he was high commissioner.
After the war, the British grouped together the Straits Settlements, the FMS and the UMS as one colony which they called Malayan Union. It was shortlived.
Following mass opposition throughout the country, the entity, sans Singapore, became the Federation of Malaya instead.
Generally, British imperial power was hardly challenged. Through the clever use of threat, persuasion and advice, Britain was able to dominate the whole country with just a small military and police presence.
Still, it was occasionally challenged. From time to time, its small police force, spread thinly throughout the country, was called together to deal with uprisings to overthrow foreign rule in the fight for independence and freedom.
Dol Said of Naning
Though not much is heard about him or mentioned in history books, the first man who really fought to be free from British rule and to be left alone to administer his own little territory was Penghulu Dol Said of Naning.
He refused to submit his collection of mukims (provinces) in Malacca to British rule and in 1832, war broke out. Never was such a force ever assembled by the British to bring just one recalcitrant penghulu (chief) to heel.
Thousands of men from various parts of the country, Singapore and India were assembled with all kinds of equipment and armoury to arrest Dol Said. Hundreds of bullock carts were used to transport equipment. Progress through the narrow village footpaths was slow and along the way to Tabuh, the main settlement of Naning, Dol Said had his men set all kinds of booby traps and ambush to discourage the expedition.
In the end, Dol Said was captured, but only after being betrayed by a lieutenant. It was the costliest war ever fought by the colonial power to maintain its prestige and dominance in Malaya.
Datuk Maharaja Lela
In 1875, another huge British force, including soldiers from India and Hongkong, was assembled because the "natives" had actually dared to lay hands on an official of the British monarch: Resident J.W.W. Birch.
Maharaja Lela of Pasir Salak, seen as the uprising's principle leader, and a few other chiefs, decided that one year of British involvement in Perak's affairs, especially one year of Birch - a Victorian disciplinarian - was more than they could tolerate. The British, especially Birch, who was seen as increasingly interfering in local traditions and customs, had to go.
The presence of the British force after Birch's killing was to demonstrate the imperial power's might to deter future challenges to colonial rule. It was a reminder of the immense power behind each British official.
When the force from India and Hongkong arrived, the 150 or so local sepoys had already
completed their task of putting down the uprising and capturing the principle leaders, among them Maharaja Lela and his neighbour from across the Perak river, Datuk Sagor.
The huge force remained on standby in Perak until after a commission determined what happened, tried those arrested, and hanged the ones found to be directly involved in Birch's killing.
Datuk Bahaman, Tok Gajah and Mat Kilau
In Pahang, the British were not actually welcomed with open arms when they moved in and installed a resident there in 1888. A year later, a full-scale rebellion led by the territorial chief of Semantan, Datuk Bahaman, or Orang Kaya Semantan, broke out.
His complaint was that he was losing independence and losing revenue as he could no longer collect taxes, and hence, had diminished dignity and respect. He complained to the sultan that the British had no right to impose their will on Pahang and its people.
A number of other chiefs, among them Tok Gajah and his son Mat Kilau, concurred with him. Fighting broke out after the British decided to send officers and the police to arrest them.
The rebels attacked police stations and seized guns and ammunition. The success of these attacks encouraged thousands of people to join Orang Kaya Semantan. At the rebellion's height in 1892, the British could not be sure whether the sultan was also encouraging the rebels.
The British sent in more people after the rebel leaders and by the year end, most of them fled the state with soldiers and the police in hot pursuit. Many, like Mat Kilau, fled to Kelantan. Mat Kilau surfaced in 1970, but nothing more was heard of the others.
Tok Janggut
Tok Janggut was killed in a fight with the British on
June 25, 1915 in Pasir Putih, Kelantan
In Kelantan, nearly all the chiefs resented the imposition of a British adviser in the state's administration. In particular, the opening of district offices in their territories meant the end of their independence.
Because it was done in the sultan's name, most of the chiefs accepted the move without demur.
But not the Pasir Putih chief, a popular and much-respected man. When he raised the flag of rebellion in 1915, his people rallied behind him.
Another rebellion leader who was always at the forefront of the fighting was Mat Hassan. He had just returned from Mecca and was deemed a religious person.
He was reverently called Tok Janggut, not just because of his white beard, but because of his age - about 60 - and his quiet demeanour. It was said that he was nearly 1.8m tall.
When he and his followers refused to pay taxes, the district office sent a sergeant to arrest him. There is some confusion over what actually happened but the sergeant was stabbed in the chest by Tok Janggut .
Full-scale fighting broke out after Tok Janggut and his followers sacked Pasir Putih and burnt down the district office. Many others joined him, heeding his call that they were fighting in the cause of Islam against the infidel British, but not against the sultan.
As fighting spread and threatened the safety of the Europeans who were opening up plantations in the state, more and more police officers were sent out to arrest him and some of the other rebellion leaders.
Tok Janggut was finally shot and killed, and his body taken to Kota Baru where it was put on public display and later ordered by the sultan to be strung up, upside down, for four hours.
Teachers and writers
Datuk Ahmad Boestaman
The end of violent anti-British uprisings did not mean the end of anti-colonial sentiments among Malayans. They were kept alive by debates and discussions by teachers especially from the Sultan Idris Training College (SITC), established in the 1920s and considered the crucible of political consciousness.
There were also the writers and journalists who wrote in magazines and newspapers such as Neraca, Al-Ikwan, Majlis and Saudara who reminded readers they were still colonised.
Among these were Ibrahim Haji Yaacob (an SITC graduate), Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy, Ishak Muhammad and Datuk Ahmad Boestaman. Through their writings, the nationalistic spirit was kept alive.
In 1937, a group of graduates from SITC and the Malay College in Kuala Kangsar formed a socio-political organisation called Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM). It was patterned on the reformist Young Turks movement led by Turkey's Kemal Ataturk and followed in the footsteps of similar movements in Indonesia.
Its latent goals were freedom and independence from British rule, but outwardly it appeared reformist and radical.
Following the Japanese invasion, most of the KMM leaders were arrested by the British in Singapore for allegedly receiving funds from the Japanese Consulate in exchange for acting as guides and interpreters during the offensive.
After Singapore fell, these leaders were freed by the Japanese and cooperated with their military administration. The Japanese, however, refused to entertain demands for independence and disbanded the KMM.
Upon Japan's defeat, the British yet again detained some KMM leaders for collaborating with the Japanese, but KMM chief Ibrahim Yaacob escaped to Indonesia where he lived in exile.
Source: Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, The Sun, Friday 13, July 2007
How To Make $100,000 Per Year Writing Content Online
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
