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
Monday, 30 July 2007
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)
