Featured Sociopolitical Stories

Malaysia - Part 1

I have the utmost respect for our first Prime Minister - Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj ibni Almarhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah, AC, CH (February 8, 1903 December 6, 1990) who was Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya from 1955, and the country's first Prime Minister from independence in 1957. He remained as the Prime Minister after Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore joined the federation in 1963 to form Malaysia. He is widely known simply as "Tunku" or "The Tunku" (a princely title in Malaysia) and also called Bapa Kemerdekaan (Father of Independence) or Bapa Malaysia (Father of Malaysia). You can read more about him at this link.

In the light of the recent furore over history - and what is or is not history, I thought I'd repost the following article written by Tunku Abdul Rahman in 1965. As it is a very long article, it will be published in three parts. Part 2 will be posted at 12 midnight and part 3 at 6.15a.m. tomorrow.

Malaysia: Key Area in Southeast Asia (Part 1) by Tunku Abdul Rahman

If one studies the map of Southeast Asia it is clear at once that Malaysia is the natural focus of the whole region. It is the only country that is both part of mainland Asia and at the same time part of the vast archipelago stretching westward from the Philippines and New Guinea to Sumatra. Thus Malaysia is not only a bridge between continental and island Asia but also the gateway between the China Sea and the Indian Ocean. By virtue of this position Malaysia is of vital importance to both Southeast Asia and the world. Add to this the fact that although Malaysia is a small nation of only 10,000,000 people, its economic significance is out of all proportion to its size and! populat ion. It is the world's leading producer of both natural rubber and tin. For this reason, if none other, the peace and prosperity, security and stability of Malaysia are of key concern both regionally and internationally.

To understand the evolution of Malaysia as a free nation and the spirit of national unity that inspires and guides the ideals and outlook of this country of many races, creeds and cultures, we must glance briefly at postwar history. The peoples of Malaya, Singapore and Borneo endured in common privation and suffering during the Japanese Occupation. When the war ended the nine states of mainland Malaya and Sarawak were British Protectorates; the islands of Singapore and Penang and the Malacca area were Crown Colonies; and North Borneo (as Sabah was then known) was the domain of a chartered company. Constitutional changes were inevitable, especially in view of the rising wave of liberation which began to sweep across Asia. Within three years the nine Malay states together with Penang and Malacca merged into the Federation of Malaya but still under the British rule. This was the first time in the history of the Malay peninsula that all these states had achieved a common central government. In the meantime, both Sabah and Sarawak became Crown Colonies, and Singapore began to take its first step towards internal self-government.

The Federation of Malaya Agreement was signed in February 1948 in Kuala Lumpur. Within four months the Malayan Communist Party launched an armed revolt to secure power. Communist terrorism erupted all over Malaya; the country came under a state of national Emergency, which was destined to last for another 12 years. Communist terrorism reached its climax in 1951 with the assassination of the British High Commissioner, Sir Henry Gurney. Field-Marshal Sir Gerald Templer who succeeded him managed to make considerable inroads into the Communist strength. Much, however, remained to be done, the situation being so dangerous that it seemed the Communists would b! e able t o hold out indefinitely.

With the growth of nationalism the desire for independence had already developed in Malaya to such a pitch that unless this fervor was released and expressed in terms of democracy, Communism, with its strong anticolonial overtone, would triumph and all hopes for freedom and independence would be lost.

The British Colonial Secretary, Mr. Lennox Boyd, visited Kuala Lumpur in 1955. As leader of the Alliance Party, I had talks with him and informed him that no amount of British arms would by itself ever rid Malaya of the menace of Communism. The solution could not come about by military means alone; it was essential to win the minds and hearts of the people, to satisfy their aspirations, and thus draw them away from the enticements of Communism, which uses freedom and independence as its battle cry. The people of Malaya, I said, wanted independence for their own country; if this could be achieved, they would be responsible for the fight against Communism, and they would win. Any delay in achieving independence could only benefit the Communists, as Communism thrived and flourished on colonialism.

In order to test the genuineness of the people's aspirations for independence, I said, we must have national elections on the issue; and if the Alliance Party won, immediate negotiations would be carried out with the British Government for Malaya's independence. We swept to victory, winning 51 out of 52 seats contested, and I became the Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs.

The first important thing I did was to arrange a talk with the Communist leader, Chin Peng, which was held on December 28, 1955, The result of that talk showed clearly that the intention of the Communists was not to liberate Malaya but to subject it completely to Communist domination. Therefore I did not hesitate to tell the people that independence could be achieved only by them and through democratic means.

It is worthy of note that from the time negotiations for independence fo! r Malaya were initiated, the support given by elements of the civilian population to the Communist terrorists rapidly began to decrease, with the result that the police and the security forces found their tasks of subduing the Communists made much easier. What had seemed to be overwhelmingly difficult for the British, the people of Malaya, inspired and encouraged by the prospect of independence, and later by its actual achievement, were able to accomplish. On July 31, 1960, the Emergency was declared over and ended. The Malayan people had now a free hand to concentrate their energies and resources on the task of nation-building.

While the Malayan people grew prosperous and happy with their nationhood, the fact could not be ignored that Communism remained the prime menace to the peace of Asia. We had successfully overcome the internal threat of Communism in Malaya, but we were only too well aware of its insidious growth in neighboring areas. I noticed particularly, with growing and grave concern, the increasing influence of Communism in the British territories of Singapore, Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak. The same pattern of Communist exploitation of anticolonial feelings that we had experienced in Malaya was taking place in those areas. I felt that time was running out, and that the Communist menace had to be swiftly met, otherwise free Malaya would once again be in danger. Therefore, in May 1961 first announced my hope that the formation of Malaysia would enable the peoples of these states to achieve the independence they desired and at the same time put an end to colonialism in their part of the world.

The announcement had electrifying results. For the next two years the prospect of Malaysia was a daily subject of debate and discussion, and during this time negotiations took place among leaders of all the states concerned and with the British. With the exception of Brunei, all the states of Malaya joined Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak in a conviction that Malaysia was their future destiny. The achieveme! nt of un ion in September 1963 was an outstanding testimony to the will and wish of the peoples of the new nation to stand united, to achieve progress and prosperity, and to resist together the Communist bid for power.

To be continued....

- masterwordsmith

Sir Abdul Aziz & the Sick DAP

September 11, 2011 by shuzheng

Within the the armed wing of the CPM, the MPLA, is a remarkable similarity with the present DAP: Mat Indera, Malay, leads the 200-strong 4th Independent Company of mostly Chinese. This is the kind of multi-racialism repeated to no end in the DAP: Karpal Singh is chairman, Tunku Abdul Aziz is deputy chair, Lim Guan Eng went to jail for a Malay girl (although he went in for himself and out of his own stupidity).

Yet, the multi-racialism is not how Aziz treats Mohamad Sabu, supposedly a friend and ally. He completely leaves out Mat Indera who is history and who Aziz never mentions by name (here, same link, NST), not even obliquely, other than by silence so as to produce this:

The communists … owed no loyalty except to China. They fought the British to turn Malaya into … a satellite of the Communist Party of China. (Whereas) the Malays in their thousands volunteered … in cooperation with the colonial power to defend (the colony) … against a godless alien ideology.

Aziz means the Chinese to be, therefore:

  • communists,
  • aliens,
  • godless,
  • wanting Malaya as a part of the Chinese mainland state.

On the other hand, Malaya is not a UK satellite nor a colony but an independent country (circa 1950) so the British exist, according to Aziz:

  • to defend Malaya from the Chinese,
  • and are joined by the volunteer Malays,
  • Aziz considers as natives, who along with Brits are
  • godly and righteous.

Those same words could have come from Ibrahim Ali or Mohamad Mahathir. No, re-read it. It’s from Tunku A. Aziz, deputy chairman DAP.

And you also read the exact same language told before by DAP’s Lim Kit Siang, et al, so there is a lesson in the NST article by Aziz. It once more lifts the veil to expose what truly constitutes the DAP: very Anglo, moralistic, anti-Chinese, anti-Malaysia, bigoted racists, and especially deceitful and hypocritical because of the multi-racialism that comes out simultaneously from the opposite corner of the mouths of Lim Guan Eng and others. (This goes for Din Merican as well, supposedly a Bangsa Malaysia type, the ideology being circulated by Haris Ibrahim on behalf of the DAP.)

The DAP as a mirror image of Anglo White racism is no exaggeration if one sees it this way: as Ibrahim is to Umno so Aziz is to the DAP.

Aziz’s article didn’t just exposed the lie in this, Pakatan Defends Mat Sabu, Flays Utusan, a statement signed by DAP’s Liew Chin Tong and duly published by the ‘independent’ editors at FMT. It was especially unequalled and unparalleled in its venomous intensity; Utusan couldn’t have done better.

This DAP attack on Mat Sabu was launched by Karpal Singh then reinforced five days after Liew’s signature. Unprecedented in the scale of name calling, ridicule and contempt, here’s how, using the Umno tool NST and outshining Utusan, Aziz had characterised Mat Sabu:

  • good for a laugh,
  • shallow,
  • twisted,
  • a sad figure of fun and ridicule,
  • political jester,
  • a tangled yarn,
  • disingenuous,
  • a wriggling worm,
  • preposterous,
  • callous,
  • insensitive,
  • amusing,
  • dishonest,
  • unprincipled,
  • irresponsible,
  • immoral courage,
  • doubtful integrity,
  • bestial,
  • coward, and
  • undignified.

If you had counted, that’s 20 descriptions total, mostly adjectival terms. Epitome of sickly old men, the leftovers and the has-beens from British yesterdays, like the Malaysia Today horde, people with little else to do with the remaining days of their lives but write letters to editors, and having grown up on a diet of Trollope, the Bronte sisters and Anglican priestly morality, Aziz had never read Hemingway who would have taught him how to write a single true sentence: never trust adjectives.

The only limit to Aziz’s name calling is his Queen’s English vocabulary he had picked up from Anglo schools and from serving Sime Darby, Dunlop, Guthrie, the usual names in elite British commercial interests who taught him how to wear a bow tie and suit and gave him a good, monied life. The thing still missing: they hadn’t knighted him.

Gloating over Aziz, this is how DAP’s Tony Pua calls the man (and contrast them to those above):

  • no small fry, in other words, big fry
  • towering Malaysian, although he means Malay,
  • a big catch, like Tony himself had been written as a big catch with an Oxbitch degree.

In Hannah Yeoh’s reckoning, Aziz would be High Class, like she is Xtra High.

He could have been Sir Aziz, but the coat tail didn’t fit and he was too little for the Anglo shoes…. Then the white tailor and white cobbler down at Regent Street refused to touch his Melayu skin to take measurements. And that was the end of the Tunku’s Sir Aziz life long dream: to be equal to the White Man. High Class.

He took out his frustration on Mat Sabu instead, blaming him for not “cooperating” with the colonialist like he had done and so did, he claims, “thousands” of policemen, including his “police family”. By family did he mean the gweilo British Special Branch who absconded with his only daughter and he’d miss, forever, the only chance of a Great White Presence beside him drinking Johnny Walker and watching BBC TV?


Tunku Abdul Aziz, Tunkui class, bow tie and Petaling Street suit, Sime Darby loyal servant, schooled in the Queen’s English, answers his Malay brethren in his imitation Small English accent, not Melayu, and he says he’s from a police family although he breathes more fire from his Ceylon-tea tainted tongue than from the armory on his gun belt.

He is always good to have for a joke: an aristocrat-ungkut to the Tee; trying to be gweilo, he once picked up a fork to comb his hair, not much left though; he thought of scones as durian seeds and over breakfast whipped out a hammer but he was promptly stopped by his English host before he could do any damage to the Queen’s cutlery; at the shopping area along Regent Street near Trafalgar Square he tried a tall hat that immediately fell and got stuck around his neck. His head, his brains actually, wasn’t as big as the White Man he tried to imitate and cover up.

The men below, he says, “cooperated” with the British to defend a land ruled by the British, schooled by the Queen, sired by White men who pinned chest of medals on Tunku’s father. Or was it grandfather? “Good Lad!” says British Inspector James. “Jolly good job. Well done. By the way, did you knock the Nuts of the Chinkos?

Tunku’s father prompted nodded and smile. Fifty years later, sonny boy Tunku Jr Aziz would write to the NST to say, his father worked with the British for Islam. That’s a new line – even PAS would have been unprepared for. As did the men below.

Aziz sums up all those acts of “cooperation” by the “nationalist freedom fighters” (below) as “chivalry”. That is, serving the Queen is fighting for an independent Malaya. And it is called chivalry.

Therein Tunku’s doublethink is beginning to read suspiciously and increasingly like the DAP party mates Hannah Yeoh, Mommy Chan, Lim Guan Eng, et al, people who excelled in doublespeak. Since Aziz comes from a police family and all police are nationalist freedom fighters, and cooperating with the Queen is chivalrous, then he, Tunku Abdul Aziz must also chivalrous. “Good lad Aziz! Here’s your Purple Star.”

While Aziz is chivalrous, Mat Sabu has “character defects” (Aziz’s words). Yes, of course, Mat is Melayu whereas Aziz is equal to the White Man.

And while dreaming of white men on horsebacks with steel armory, and knights riding into a kampung of sarunged Melayus, Aziz has the nightmare that never goes away: no matter how far or how much he fawns after them the British hadn’t yet to put a sword to his shoulders and call him, “Sir Aziz, Arise Sir Aziz.

He hasn’t yet lost hope. But he must remember to tie up his sarong well lest it dropped off from his kampung slippers: he mustn’t let down those stupid kampung Melayus, he thinks, who can’t even tell a soup from a dessert spoon. Malu-lah. Everything Aziz is taught to appreciate are benchmarked to white habits.

Good Lad. Nice piece you wrote in the NST,” was all the Queen said in her Majesty’s reply to the Tunku. Imagine Aziz promptly framing it up and showing it to Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh. A framed copy might turn up the offices of Karpal Singh & Sons. Look out for it next time you need a lawyer to defend yourself against police brutal chivalry.

The ink on the ‘we-are-with-you’ DAP statement hadn’t even dried up, and DAP and PAS hadn’t even gone down to brass tacks on joint rule, and Lim Kit Siang’s hatchet men, to wit Karpal and Aziz, have gone over Mat Sabu like there is no tomorrow. PAS by extension. Such treachery. Karpal had delivered the first thrust, Mat doubled down on his abdomen and Aziz quickly stepped up to shove the next dagger into the man’s spine.

Et tu, Brute.” ["You too, Brutus."]

Yes, me too, Matty,” answers Sir Aziz.

Imagine Mat Sabu’s surprise, delivered especially by a fellow Malay, and that barely a week into a pledge of support from the DAP senior echelon.

Mat Sabu’s problem was to have grown up among commoners, ordinary Melayus, who would have trouble understanding what and how it is to connive against a neighbour or a friend. Aziz, on the other hand, had lived on scones and from reading Shakespeare (Brutus above) where he would have picked up treachery, betrayal and conspiracies that ooze from the pages of Penguin as natural as British jam but not kampung values that the Anglo-Saxons, including their imitation versions like Hannah Yeoh, think are uncivilized and low class.

This explains why Aziz belongs to the Tunkui class. By inadvertent admission, Aziz said so himself, using the neutral but misleading word ‘cooperating’ instead of ‘collaborating’ with his colonial minders. Collaboration means betrayal on the flip side, whereas cooperation suggests good intentions. But, in another, straightforward term, he has been a running dog of imagined aristocratic breed chasing after coat tails, and still does. The only difference between him and the Bukit Kepong police is that his form of cooperation with the minders is total. It is like conversion to Christianity; he even imitates the Queen with his faked English accent.

This, therefore, is one of the kinds of deceitful and phoney characteristic qualities that run through the DAP, from the bottom to the top leadership echelons, from Hannah to James Ngeh, Liew Chin Tong to Lim Guan Eng and Karpal. Aziz’s NST article is a reflection thereof and note how much it is imbued with a descriptive personal characterization of Mat Sabu in moralistic terms, righteous and unrighteous, godly and ungodly.

Mat Sabu hadn’t offered an opinion on Bukit Kepong that Aziz says he did. He was stating countervailing history, so it was either true or false and not a matter of right or wrong. Aziz had instead turned it into an opinionated matter, hence moralistic, in which he resorted to two things: a pre-emptive bid and outright lies.

The first questions Mat Sabu’s character, indeed his sanity:

I concede his right to his opinion, but when Mohamad, who he is in the Pas hierarchy, … then he cannot speak as a jester. … The people have a right to examine him more closely for signs of character defects.

The second, and the lie, made Mat Sabu appear he abetted treason, a standard device that uses undertones of racism by, for example, Mohamad Mahathir:

The communists … owed no loyalty except to China (and) fought the British with the sole purpose of turning Malaya into a Chinese communist state….

That explains why Aziz completely omitted Mat Indera’s name. Mentioning Mat Indera, Aziz would have to say Mat Sabu is defending a Malay who is leading a company of communists, all Chinese, killing Malay ‘nationalist freedom fighters’ (working for British masters) to turn Malaya into a Chinese satellite. It doesn’t make sense: contradiction piled on contradiction on contradiction.

How does Aziz gets around the problem? Lying.

Aziz, taking the Chinese as scapegoat for Malaysia’s ills, is by now part of the daily national routine. But against Mat Sabu? A man, a reflection of the kampung Malay, with so little?

Why? Why is Aziz doing this to a man such as Mat Sabu, who has not had his privileges, his kind of money and English bow tie, his connections in high places, and his good Anglo life in England, Sime Darby and Dunlop. Why indeed?

The answers are no longer important, not anymore, and these have been given before anyway (here, for example). More important than the answers is what Aziz reveals of the DAP and the character of its men and women, its politicians, who says, repeatedly, they are more righteous and more godly than the rest of Malaysia, and so deserving to rule. They are not even saying they are more competent than Umno, and they are not. Rather, it’s that saintly thing again, about what Hannah exemplifies, about what Haris Ibrahim extols, about Lim Guan Eng, now Karpal and Abdul Aziz.

Bukit Kepong, therefore and thanks to Aziz, is reducible to the qualitative character of men, in this case the nature of the DAP. And if nature, then Aziz supplies the conclusion that the DAP is a party of men who have gone completely over the cliff. Not in Putrajaya and, already, they have become insane to the promises of power.

Ever since they began using Jesus Christ as a political hammering tool, nothing else matters. They longer employ reason or rely on the terms of ethics, values, and humanity which, among Mat Sabu’s kampung Melayu, or in Bukit Kepong terms, means just to be honest. On that score, Aziz don’t even know how, except to call on his perverted Anglo culture that he has taken up in place of Mat Sabu’s kampung adat.

Mat Sabu is challenging the Aziz version of what is it to be Melayu and the DAP version of what is it to be Malaysia, both of which he probably understands intuitively to be imported. It is therefore faked and a forgery along with the Umno-centered history told day in, day out for half a century. And Mat Sabu says, ‘we had had enough!

Aziz signifies, in turn, a DAP going nowhere not especially with its Malaysian Malaysia, Malaysia First, Middle Malaysia, Christian Malaysia – full of sloganeering amounting to nothing. So, in Mat Sabu and in countless other preceding examples, there is a renewed lesson from Aziz, Karpal as well: under no and all circumstances, never, never, never trust the DAP.

It is today an unravelling farce of Shakespearean scale: contradictory, deceitful, while the men of DAP pontificate about “honesty, principle, moral courage and integrity”. Those are in Aziz’s article so that, in his words, he actually sin against his own moral claims, all British standard.

This post is owed to the heads up at Helen Ang where the Aziz article was reported but conveniently omitted and so hidden away from the DAP and other Pakatan readers at Malaysiakini, Malaysia Today, FMT, and numerous other English language portals.

MM: People cannot change history, only Mongrel Muslims can.

Dr M: History turning into fantasy

"History is all about what had happened, and we cannot change that... whatever happened in the past, had happened,” said Dr Mahathir.

Commentary from MM

Correct x 3. That's historical fact and science ... but for MM, no problem.

As soon as we start to convince ourselves hypocrisy is beautiful, denounce our ancestors as some kind of dirt, and perhaps also bleach our skin a little, our history can 'disappear' just like that ... Thanks to the loophole in the Constitution left behind by some Anglo monkeys ... which we MM abuse to the max.

We MM can change from Indian to Malay to even Monkey ... with ease ... we're loving it ... Hehehe

- MM (Mongrel Muslim)

All characters appearing in this post include Mongrel Muslims (MM) are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Dr Mahathir said history must not be changed for political interests. — File pic

ALOR SETAR, Sept 11—Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today said Malaysian history as currently taught in schools was inaccurate, claiming that it failed to provide proper context of the country’s fight for independence.

“Many from the younger generation do not understand history and the origin of the nation, as there were attempts to alter historical facts into fantasy,” the former prime minister was quoted as saying in a Bernama Online report today.

The subject of local history became a hot topic after Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia alleged that PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu had said on August 27 that the communists who attacked the Bukit Kepong police station during the pre-Merdeka insurgency were heroes.

National Professors’ Council (MPN) has taken the debate further by claiming that Malaya, the precursor to Malaysia, was never colonised by the British Empire and had merely been a protectorate.

Today, Dr Mahathir urged the government ensure that historical accuracy be given priority over political expedience.

“The government needs to focus on what really transpired so that writings on the country's history would not be influenced by current political interests... History is all about what had happened, and we cannot change that... whatever happened in the past, had happened,” said Dr Mahathir.

Last week, Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Khaled Nordin said the current History syllabus in schools was in need of review.

Is it really, Professor?

"But while one man standing in the road is a nuisance, a mere distraction, 10 men standing together are far harder to ignore. And if those 10 become 100, a thousand, a million, a billion even, they become a force so big, so strong and so united in their common cause that those who espouse hatred will face a very simple choice." : Prime Minister Najib Razak's Oxford speech - 17th May 2011

Loyal Followers

Monday, September 12, 201! 1

Is it really, Professor?

I must admit of being astounded by the claim by Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling that Tanah Melayu had never been colonised by the British, save for the period when Malayan Union was introduced. For the record, this is his claim:

The good Professor rested his claim as such on the fact that the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 between Raja Abdullah and the British Governor in Singapore did not mention that Perak was to be colonised but was only to be protected as a protectorate of the British. The Professor went on to say that the only states which were colonised by the British in Tanah Melayu were Singapore, Penang and Melaka.

The good Professor may be correct in so far as historical terminologies go. But history is not about terminologies and semantics. True history is about facts and reality. Of course, facts may be looked at from different views, angles and perspective resulting in different interpretations and conclusions. Realities may also be subjected to the same treatment giving rise to the term of administered reality.

With all due respect to the good Professor, the British entry into Tanah Melayu and their subsequent entrenchment in Tanah Melayus administration leading to at least a de facto colonisation of the whole of the Tanah Melayu peninsula and her surrounding islets cannot be viewed solely from and within the effect of the Pangkor Treaty alone. That would tantamount to an attempt to define the whole cosmos just by looking at the moon alone and nothing else.

Lets however begin with the Pangkor Treaty 1874 (as the Professor had relied his thesis on it).

! For the record, prior to the Pangkor Treaty, the British, through the British East India Company, were already deeply entrenched in Tanah Melayu. It colonised Penang in 1786. Penang was later confirmed to be a possession of the British in 1800 by the then Sultan of Kedah. In 1819, Stamford Raffles took it upon himself to bring Singapore into the British fold.

Later in 1824, the British and the Dutch, presumably under the mandate of some godlike creatures residing somewhere within the mountains of Scotland, decided among themselves to divide the Malay Archipelago into two, thereby giving away Melaka to the British and Indonesia (Sumatera) to the Dutch.

In each of these three little states which the British saw fit to do as it please, they had a Governor who governed for the British. In 1867, these so called settlements became the Crown Colonies and came directly under the purview of the Colonial Office in London.

Meanwhile, in Perak, upon the death of Sultan Ali in 1871, a palace power struggle was brewing. The Raja Muda of Perak was Raja Abdullah. He should have gone on to take the thrones. As events would have it, the Raja Bendahara, Raja Ismail was pronounced as Sultan.

Perak was a rich tin producer at that time. The British were itchy to get their greedy hands on Perak. They were waiting for an opportunity. That opportunity presented itself when Raja Abdullah wrote to the Governor of Singapore, Sir Andrew Clarke, spelling out his desire to place Perak under British protection, and "to have a man of sufficient abilities to show (him) a good system of government."

The British surely did not need further motivation but to lend their generous helping hands to a Malay ruler in need of course. With that, the Governor very kindly entered into the Pangkor Treaty with Raja Abdullah on 20th January 1874. With that agreement in hand, Raja Abdullah was made Sultan of Perak (although Raja Ismail was earlier appointed Sultan by the Malay palace).

Raja Ismail (the then Sul! tan) of course did not attend the signing of the Pangkor Treaty as he did not recognise the agreement for obvious reason. But faced with the might of the very big and terribly friendly and generous British, Raja Ismail could not do anything other than seeing the throne being taken by Raja Abdullah. Sir W W Birch was appointed, pursuant to the agreement, Peraks 1st British Resident.

(It was with considerable irony that Raja Abdullah later Sultan Abdullah was later thrown out to the Seychelles for conspiring to murder Birch).

Professor Datuk Dr Zainal was correct to say that the Pangkor Treaty did not say Perak was a colony of the British. But surely that does not mean that Perak was not colonised by the British.

So what if the British had said Perak was only a protectorate? Does it mean anything at all? What if the British had said that Perak was a paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die? Does that mean Perak was a paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die? Just because the British had said so?

The British, for whatever reason, chiefly because they had wanted to classify their dominions throughout the world for economics and social purposes (and also for qualification for British citizenship) had categorised its conquests into three classes, the colonies, the protectorates and the protected states. Semantically of course there are differences between the three. But factually, it does not take a rocket scientist, or a learned bunch of thick-spectacled history professors to know that there were not much of a difference between them.

A colony is of course a state which the British had annexed or settled in. This state was presumed to be a jungle or a barren state where civilisation did not exist. And the very civilised British had of course discovered that state, just like Stamford Raffles did Singapore or Francis Light did Penang.

A protectorate is a state which the civ! ilised a nd friendly (and generous) British had not annexed or settled in. This is a state where the British came in at the request of the helpless ruler of that state. It is a state where the British came to help or came to administer not through force but through agreements or treatise. Yes. That is a protectorate.

A protected state on the other hand, is a state which is protected by the British, again at the request of the ruler of that state. However, according to the British, in a protected state, the British did not involve themselves with its governance.

Yes. That is the difference between the three classes of the British conquests. Who said so? Well, the British said so. So, if the British said so, it must be correct right? Well, the British also said that Maggie Thatcher had balls. Remember?

Relying on semantics and these semantics were coined and used by none other than the British themselves the good Professor said according to the Pangkor Treaty, Perak was not colonised.

Well, is it really? Lets look at the terms of the so called treaty.

First of all, Raja Abdullah was proclaimed by the British as the Sultan of Perak in place of Raja Ismail, who was already proclaimed in accordance with the adat dan istiadat Raja-raja Melayu Perak as the Sultan. Now, may I ask, on what authority did the British make that appointment? On the fact that they are white men with guns and ammunitions far better than the collective keris and parangs owned by the Perakians? Now, if that is not annexation of Perak, tell me what it is.

Then, why dont we (and the good Professor) loom at the salient terms of the so-called treaty.

  • Raja Abdullah was acknowledged as the legitimate Sultan to replace Sultan Ismail who would be given a title and a pension of 1000 Mexican pesos a month.
  • The Sultan would receive a British Resident whose advice had to be sought and adhered to in all matters except those pertaining to the religion and customs of the Malays.
  • < div>All collections and control of taxes as well as the administration of the state would be done in the name of the Sultan, but the Sultan was to govern according to the advice and consent of the Resident.
  • The Minister of Larut would continue to be in control but would no longer be recognized as a liberated leader. Instead, a British officer, who would have vast authority in administering the district, would be appointed in Larut.
  • The Sultan, and not the British government, would pay the salary of the Resident.
  • Perak ceded Dinding and Pangkor Island to the United Kingdom.
  • Is this what a protectorate is all about? Does it not sound to all of us that Perak was as good as being annexed in a war with the British? Just consider the fact that the Sultan was to govern the state in accordance with the advice and consent of the British Resident. Perak was not colonised you say, Professor? Well, last night I saw pink cows flying over the crescent. Very nice.

    Throughout the British presence in Tanah Melayu, we had three categories of states. The straits settlements, namely, Penang, Singapore and Melaka. Then we have Federated Malay States, ie, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. These states were all not colonised, according too the British. They were just protectorate. Yea, right.

    Then we have the Unfederated Malay States, which were Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu and Johor. They were also termed as protected states by the British. Again, that does not mean that they were not colonised by the British.

    Under intense pressure by the British for example, Johor accepted a treaty of protection by the United Kingdom in 1885. With that Johor accepted a British advisor.

    The way Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu came under the protection and became branded as Unfederated Malay States is an insult to every Malaysians. And for the British to insist that they had never officially and technic! ally, th at is been colonised by the British is an act of colonial arrogance.

    How did Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu become protected states of the British? Well, just as in 1824 when the British gods decided to divide this part of the world with the Dutch, in 1909, the British did the same with Thailand in the Anglo-Siamese Treaty 1909. In this treaty, these two gods divided the northern Malay states into two.

    Under this treaty, Pattani , Narathiwat, Songkhla, Satun and Yala remained under Thai control, while Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis and Terengganu which integrated into the British realm in Tanah Melayu as protectorates.

    Now, who gave the authority and mandate to the British and Thais to willy nilly decide among themselves who to own what? The Pope? The British queen?

    The mere act of unilaterally dividing these collection of Malay states which even predate Melaka among themselves is incontrovertible proof that these states were under the whims and fancies of these two people, ie, the Thais and the British.

    All the terms coined and marketed about by the British were only what they are, namely, terms. Semantics. That is all. The effect is the same. They came into our country either through uninvited settlements or request by some people with vested interests. Under the pretext of lending their hands to assists us, they raped, plundered and stole our resources. They invited and brought people from foreign lands (I have to stress that I do not have anything against them) to work here. They then divided all of us and ruled us. Now, if that is not colonisation, I do not know what is.

    The mere fact that they could come back to Malaya after the Japanese who kicked them out earlier in about 5 days surrendered and forced the Malay Rulers and everybody else to accept the Malayan Union (where they consolidated the Straits Settlements; the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States into one Federation is p! roof eno ugh that they regarded Tanah Melayu regardless of their semantic classifications as their possession, as theirs to do whatever they liked.

    Isnt that a trait of every colonial Master, Datuk Dr Professor?

    If they had not controlled the whole Tanah Melayu other than the Straits Setllements, how did they manage to force every state to accept the Malayan Union. How did they manage to compel all our Malay Rulers to submit to their arrogance habit of dividing this territory as if we are some bunch of grapes which were to be graded and stomped on by their feet whenever they please?

    What authority did the British have to administer us? To submit too their system? To their sense of justice? To their system of civil service? I am not saying that their systems are bad but under what authority did they manage to make us adopt their systems other than a systematic colonisation of our land?

    Dear Professor, perhaps you should read the British Parliament hansard when they were debating the Malayan Independence Bill. In the first place, if they did not colonise us, why and under what authority did they have to pass an Act of Palriament in their Parliament to give us independence?

    Sometime, people show their true colours when the speak. This is what the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, in a Freudian moment, said:

    Today, we are setting the seal on this work. We can, with Edmund Burke, rejoice that our ancestors have made the most extensive and the only honourable conquest not by destroying but by promoting the wealth, the number and the happiness of the human race. (emphasis is mine).

    Yes. That was, and still is, how they saw us.

    Their honourable conquest.

    And we were not colonised you say?



    I saw those pink cows too around about the same time I heard the good Doctors claim that Malaysia was never colonised by the Brits......

    12 September 2011 12:44

    It's pathetic to see how idiotic our academician's twisting the history for political masters.

    12 September 2011 12:57

    So he's saying each and every one who fought for Merdeka was doing it under a misconception. So who told them they were fighting for inde! pendence ...saje, for fun ke?

    12 September 2011 13:42
    Mohd. Kamal bin Abdullahsaid...

    I totally agree with you that Malaya was a British colony.

    Our academicians just make blind statements without carrying-out a thorough research on this matter. One must be really sure before making a statement.Just imagine a NON-PhD is able to justify his stand.

    Good work mate.

    Read my blog MALAYSIANS MUST KNOW THE TRUTH http://malaysiansmustknowthetruth.blogspot.com/

    12 September 2011 14:15

    Why did the British erect a pillar in London with the words &quo! t;Malay States" if they did not really "owned" Malaya? You can't really bell a cat unless you really own the cat, right?

    12 September 2011 14:22

    I don't think the Prof is that dumb. He is politically biased. There is no two ways about it. Its mutually exclusive: either you are DUMB or historically (read politically) biased.

    12 September 2011 14:32

    Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling took one word from the Pangkor Treaty - i.e. "protected" and made a mountain out of it - and summed up his version of history.

    If I was in authority, I would strip him of his datukship and professorship. Now you know why Malaysian Professors hardly write any books or journals - they know, they will look st! upid!

    12 September 2011 14:43

    And Tengku Abdul Rahman did not shout "Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka" on 31 August. He actually shouted "Bebas Pelindungan, Bebas Pelindungan, Bebas pelindungan".

    12 September 2011 15:44


    Totally agree with your analysis. UMNO has "colonised" Malaysia just like what the Brits did in the 19th and mid 20th century. The learned professor is playing with semantics and he knows its always smart to be interpreting history according to how UMNO wants the Malaysian history to be re-written ala UMNO's way.!

    And by the way, I also saw the pink cows last night but I though they were floating lanterns released by little kids celebrating the moon cake festival, which if UMNO wants us to believe, is actually of UMNO origin as they hid messages inside their UMNO kuih bulan to get all their UMNO members to fight for Tanah Melayu independence from the half drunk Brits.

    12 September 2011 16:03

    I can imagine someone like this good professor 'advising' the Malay rulers to accept British influence on the basis that it will not be colonisation but only protection all those years ago. To think we still have them today.

    12 September 2011 16:42

    Post a Comment

    Follow by Email

    Share it

    About Me

    Art Harun believes that he is a failed government experiment, abandoned and left alone to roam the streets after all remedial efforts yielded no positive result. He calls himself a non-governmental organism, practices law for a living and tries very hard to play guitar, sing, race cars and write some stuffs to stay alive.

    My complete profile.
    My Facebook
    My Twitter ID - Art_Harun

    All Rights Reserved

    The writer claims ownership of all the articles published here. All rights to the articles published here are reserved.

    Popular Posts

    • Dear Ezam, With reference to your manic and almost maniacal spewing of hatred last Friday, I just have this to say to you. You are an emba...
    • It shows that Malaysians are observing the agreements they have signed without trying to retaliate in other directions, such as water, whi...
    • I must admit of being astounded by the claim by Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling that Tanah Melayu had never been colonised by the British, s...
    • JAIS issued a statement yesterday concerning the so-called raid on Damansara Utama Methodist Churchs Dream Centre in Petaling Jaya on 3rd...
    • ARTiculations demands a full and unreserved apology. Now!
    • Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri Maaf Dzahir dan Batin dari saya sekeluarga kepada semua umat Islam. Saya juaga ingin mengucapkan selamat menya...
    • *before some Nazis decide to charge me for whatever offence, allow me to say that this post IS A JOKE and being a joke, IT IS NOT TRUE and i...
    • In so far as Bersih is concerned, I am done lecturing on the concept of fundamental liberties and the rights of the people. I am done writin...
    • Someone sent a posting to a legal group (of which I am a member) of an article by Sir Hugh Orde, the President of the Association of Chief P...
    • The outlook is grim I must say. Underscoring the seriousness of the US debt-payment horror is the fact that as of July this year, Apple In...

    Recent Posts

    Online Now

    Subscribe To


    Twitter Updates

    Lijit Search

    Blog Archive

    hit counter
    Picture Window template. Template images by Josh Peterson. Powered by Blogger.