Freedom, GEABSOLUTE POWERS CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY, General Election (GE15), Malaysia, Politics, polling Nov 19: Destroy Umno for the betterment of Malaysia, race, religion, Solidality, support Aliran for Justice

Share This

Showing posts with label Bukit Kepong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bukit Kepong. Show all posts

Thursday 15 September 2011

Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need truly national!





Of history and semantics

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER By M.VEERA PANDIYAN
veera@thestar.com.my

According to the country’s history buffs, we were not legally a colony of Britain, but only in effect.
Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj announced the ...Image via Wikipedia
IT was meant to be good break in Thailand, especially after weeks of scouring stories from dusty, bound copies of The Star for the paper’s 40th anniversary.

The mood in the kingdom, however, has been somewhat sombre, no thanks to the exceptionally bad weather this rainy season.

Floods and landslides have swept across 16 provinces in the country, killing more than 80 people and the death toll is set to rise further.

Even the resort town of Pattaya, which is usually spared from heavy torrents, was flooded over the weekend, along with Krabi, another tourist destination.

The rising waters have also set free potentially man-eating salt water crocodiles from a popular reptile farm, adding to the fears of locals and tourists.

So, there was little choice but to bum it out in Bangkok and keep abreast of the news, especially from back home.

And like always, the wonders never cease.

There was no escape from history and bizarre opinions from people who really should know better.

It was certainly news to read that Malaysia, or to be more precise, Malaya, was never a British colony but only a “protectorate”, as declared by Prof Dr Zainal Kling, a member of the 1,500-strong National Professors’ Council.



He argued that Britain held administrative powers, controlled the money and exploited the country’s natural resources but did not infringe Malay sovereignty in the states – except in the Straits Settlements of Malacca, Penang and Singapore.

Since then, there has been a deluge of comments against his views, along with the usual gnawing doubts about the state of our education system and more so the people who are supposed to be leading it.

But even the country’s most notable historian, Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Khim supported Dr Zainal, stressing that from a legal point of view, Malaya was never colonised.

The British, he said, took part in the administration of the Malay states as a result of treaties with the Rulers.
Dr Khoo said only those born in the Straits Settlements – yours truly from Malacca included – were considered British subjects, while those born in the Malay states were not. (Take note, Hindraf).

So, according to our presumably sage professors, it seems that in the legal sense we were not colonised but, sadly, in effect we were.

As former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohmad said sarcastically:
“The British did not advise, they gave orders.

“The English language is such that the advisers rule and rulers advise.”

Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, a research fellow at the Islamic Renaissance Front explained it vividly in his article in Harakah last week.

“Colonialism involves the exploitation of wealth of a nation – where one country becomes subjugated by the power and authority of another.

“If a country is browbeaten in such a manner, its sovereignty is already violated in effect, no matter what the legal documents say.

“So, Malay sovereignty was not protected under the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 because it gave the British a legal mandate to advise and interfere in local matters.”

As Ahmad Fuad rightly pointed out, sovereignty basically means power; and before independence, it was the British who held absolute power and control of the country.

The debate over the semantics of “colonisation” is of course, a spin-off from the controversy sparked by PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, better known as Mat Sabu.

The Pokok Sena MP was reported to have said during a ceramah in Penang recently that a group of guerillas led by Mat Indera, who killed 25 policemen and their families in the Bukit Kepong tragedy in 1950, were the real heroes because they were fighting against the British.

He was also alleged to have said that Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar and the country’s first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman do not deserve to be called independence leaders because they were British officers.
In Thailand, colonisation, or rather the absence of it, is indeed a big deal.

Among the things that the Thais are very proud of is that they have never been a colony of any Western power.

I suppose one should ignore the fact that Thailand did not exist until 1939. Before that it was Siam, which in its long history, was sacked by the Burmese and Khmers.

But as for recent times past, its kings are credited as being smart – by being neutral instead of taking sides with any European colonial power.

King Chulalongkorn, for example, offered the country as a geographical buffer for the competing colonial interests and, through this, effectively protected the kingdom from foreign meddling.

Earlier this year, the Thai government planned to make English the country’s second language.

But the plan was stymied midway by former education minister Chinnaworn Boonyakiat.

The committee reviewing the education system shot down the proposal for a peculiar reason: Making English a second official language might lead to misunderstanding that Thailand had been colonised in the past.

The minister justified his decision by saying that all countries in the region where English is the second language were viewed as former colonies.
While making comparisons between silly news makers in both countries, a Malaysian friend who is a long-time Bangkok resident summed it up with a common phrase:

“Same, same but different.”

Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes this Mark Twain quote: The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice.

Sovereignty of Malay Rulers a legal fiction

IN the midst of the controversy over Mat Sabu and Bukit Kepong certain views have been expressed about British rule which may have the unintended effect of confusing rather than enlightening.

It is true that the Malay states – unlike Penang, Malacca and Singapore – were not British colonies in the formal sense. Nonetheless, they were under British rule. The sovereignty of the Malay Rulers was a legal fiction.

The Ruler was required in both the Federated and Unfederated Malay States to seek, and act upon, the advice of the British Resident or Adviser “on all questions other than those touching Malay Religion and Custom”.

In other words, decision-making powers were effectively in the hands of the British.

Apart from laws and treaties which established the actual locus of authority with the British, every important dimension of the economy was under their control. Issues pertaining to land, resources, labour, capital and market in the Malay states were all determined by British policy and British interests.

This made the situation in the Malay states no different from the three British colonies in their vicinity. Indeed, it was British control over both the internal and external economy of the Malay states that rendered them de facto colonies.

Economic control led to the exploitation of Chinese and Indian workers in the tin mining and plantation sectors and the marginalisation of the Malay masses in the peasant sector.

The creation of a dual economy with the commodity based, exported oriented sector directed towards the colonial metropolis was a common characteristic of most colonial economies. In reality, the Malay states bore all the iniquities and injustices associated with colonial rule.

It is mainly because there was de facto colonialism that Umno in the 50s and Parti Kebangsaan Melayu in the 40s championed the cause of merdeka (independence) from the British.

They were focussed upon the substance – rather than the form – of British rule.

DR CHANDRA MUZAFFAR,Kuala Lumpur.

We need a truly national history

the Sun Says

WHAT was Malaysia when imperial Britain was lording it over us, a colony or a protectorate? This seems to be the title of the public debate that is raging in the media and elsewhere ever since someone declared that the country was not a colony of Britain before 1957 and 1963.

It may perhaps help the debaters to be reminded that before the Japanese occupation Malaya was made up of a colony known as Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore, the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negri Sembilan and the Unfederated Malay States of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Johor.

In 1946, Sabah (then British North Borneo) and Sarawak became colonies. Whatever their legal status – colony or protectorate, Britain was the de facto ruling power over them. In 1957, the states of Malaya became independent of that power, free finally to decide their own destiny. Sabah and Sarawak followed six years later.

Because it is not an academic debate some are clearly being emotional about it while others try, with whatever facts they have at their command, to claim that they are being objective. There is no doubt some valid points are being made but in the heat of the debate few seem to notice them.

It all arose as a result of a claim that someone is a hero because he was fighting his countrymen who were part of the colonial police force.

While it may not be easy to come out with a clear-cut answer and explanation acceptable to all as to whether the person is a hero or a terrorist, the debate has generated a lot of interest in the history of the country especially at a time when the contents of secondary school history textbooks are being scrutinised for errors and inaccuracies.

The special committee that is going through the history books and the complaints of one-sidedness regarding them is expected to come up with a report by the end of the year.

Local historians have been known to complain that the history books written by western writers or those influenced by them tended to play up the role of the British while ignoring or down playing the roles of local personalities.

To "correct" the situation local historians in their books tended to down play the roles of Britain and British officials in the history of the country. Some other local historians also tended to highlight the role of one community while down playing the roles and contributions of the other communities.

A common complaint of Sabahans and Sarawakians is that the history of the formation of Malaysia gives more prominence to the roles of West Malaysians in the effort while the natives seem to be mere passive assenters to the fait accompli.

Thus the report is eagerly awaited and if universally accepted it may be a guide or template for the writing of a history that is truly national.

Sunday 4 September 2011

PAS Deputy President, Mat Sabu, In the spotlight for wrong reason?





In the spotlight for wrong reason

INSIGHT: By JOCELINE TAN

Mohamad Sabu’s provocative style is being scrutinised in the hot glare of the spotlight now that he is deputy president of PAS, and he is making news. 

IT was not surprising that Mohamad Sabu’s latest “eruption” happened in Tasik Gelugor, the rural Malay outskirts on the mainland side of Penang.

The PAS deputy president, better known as Mat Sabu, has his sights set on Penang in the next general election and Tasik Gelugor is one of the parliamentary seats he is eyeing.

The plan is one of those poorly kept secrets among Penang Pakatan Rakyat leaders who hope that the fiery orator who shoots from the hip will lend his weight in the defence of Penang and help the Chinese-dominated coalition connect with the Malay ground.

Provocative style: Mat Sabu’s shoot-from-the-hip political style is changing the image of PAS. He is seen here in a wheelchair with his wife Norma Alwi (left) arriving for a dinner-cum-ceramah not long after the Bersih protest.
Mat Sabu and Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng are what some call NBF, that is, New Best Friends. He is the DAP’s idea of what a PAS leader should be. He speaks their lingo, does not always go around dressed like some Middle-Eastern citizen and is clued in on current issues. His political style is not very different from that of DAP leaders; he is a street-fighter whose speeches are as witty as they are about banging and slamming his opponents.

In fact, he has often told friends, “I am a bazaari (an Iranian term for street-fighter).”

Mat Sabu is without a doubt the most controversial leader in PAS today. He has been making headline news since becoming the PAS No. 2 in June and he is trying to make his presence felt in Penang where he was born.

The trouble is that he not only shoots from the hip, he also sometimes shoots himself in the foot.
His remarks about the Bukit Kepong affairs, made in the heat of a ceramah and used as an analogy of how history is often written by the victors, were one such instance.

Historical interpretation is not against the law but the tone of his remarks, coming on the eve of National Day, was tasteless timing and simply politically incorrect. And it is up in YouTube where everyone can hear for themselves what he said.





There is no denying that he referred to the pro-Communist attackers in Bukit Kepong as “those fighting for independence” while the police personnel under attack were dismissed as belonging “to the British” and thus part of the colonialists. The fact is that home-grown policemen and soldiers fought alongside the British during the insurgency years and many died for their country.



Mat Sabu is not pro-Communist but his words came across as irreverent of the role of the security forces in the nation’s struggle for independence and against communism.

His Pakatan colleagues have defended him but he has been made mincemeat by Utusan Malaysia, which has devoted pages of coverage on the issue, and including reports of noted historian Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Khim and DAP chairman Karpal Singh chiding him for his version of Bukit Kepong.

This is barely two months after his spectacular clash with the police during the Bersih protests. His knee, which he injured during the protests, has yet to recover and these days, he sits down when speaking at ceramah. The circumstances surrounding his knee injury is still a matter of dispute and even the injury itself is surrounded by mystery.

Immediately after the Bersih demonstrations, he had appeared at a string of high-profile functions in a wheelchair, claiming that a police Land Rover had rammed into him as he was riding pillion on a motorcycle. He was hailed as an injured hero.

It made the police look really bad, but when the police released a video showing otherwise, Mat Sabu’s attacks ground to a stop and he told reporters pursuing the story that he would respond to them in court.

He has since stopped talking about the incident and is now confronted by queries over his billing of the medical treatment for the injury to the Penang Water Authority of which he is a board member.

“But the most shocking part about the Bukit Kepong issue was that he said he could not really remember what he said. To me, that was more terrible than if he had really said all those things. A leader cannot say something and then a few days later, tell us he cannot remember,” said restaurateur Juhaidi Yean Abdullah.

Juhaidi recalled hearing Mat Sabu and several other PAS politicians speak at a ceramah shortly after the Al Mauna incident, where a cult of Islamic extremists had attacked a military camp, seized ammunition and then proceeded to kill the hostages one by one.

“They claimed it was a sandiwara (shadow play or conspiracy) engineered by the Government to discredit the Islamists. I remember feeling quite sad when the mother of one of those killed asked: ‘If it is a sandiwara, why has my son not come home?’” said Juhaidi.

A more thorough investigation of that tragic episode has been screened on Astro’s Discovery channel and it has helped put the matter to rest.

Drama king

But it does seem that Mat Sabu, like many of his friends who dominate the ceramah circuit, has a tendency to make dramatic claims and statements.

“He once told me that even if he is sick and down with fever, if you give him a microphone, he will recover and does not need to see the doctor. He is the sort of guy – you put a microphone in his hand, put him on a stage and he becomes a different person. But once the curtain comes down, he is back to his normal self,” said blogger Syed Azidi Syed Aziz, also known as Kickdefella.

Mat Sabu has always had a no-holds barred style. At the height of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sacking, Mat Sabu who has had issues with Anwar dating back to their days in Abim was going around, giving ceramah and talking about “Al Juburi”, which is Arab for the A-word.

The Malays call it mulut tak ada insuran (uninsured mouth, meaning that what is said could be libellous).
Not everybody likes his aggressive style, especially his habit of calling people names. He was deemed so controversial at one stage that he was not invited to speak at ceramah during by-elections.

There is no denying that Mat Sabu has a folksy charm and a certain boyishness about him although he is now 57 and rather overweight. He is a crowd-puller and PAS members flock to listen to him because they are guaranteed of entertainment. He is often the last person to speak so that the crowd will stay on till the end.

“His enemies are frightened when he speaks. At the same time, his style attracts the bullets of Umno,” said Harakahdaily editor-in-chief Zulkifli Sulong.

The Umno assemblyman for Ketereh in Kelantan, Datuk Alwi Che Ahmad, has a cynical but witty take on Mat Sabu.

“I will remember him forever. I became a political secretary to a minister because of him,” he said with a laugh.

Mat Sabu had contested against Tan Sri Annuar Musa in Nilam Puri, Kelantan, in the 1990 general election. It was a big fight with lots of ceramah going on. At one ceramah, the Kelantan-born Annuar had said in jest: “Why do you want to vote for Mat Sabu? He is an outsider. I am a local boy, more educated. I studied in two universities. I am taller and more handsome.”

Mat Sabu rebutted in similar vein at his own ceramah: “Anuar Musa is better educated, taller, more handsome but I am more popular, especially among the women.”

He went on to crush Annuar with a majority of 8,000 votes. Annuar was subsequently appointed a senator and minister and that was how Alwi became his political secretary.

Mat Sabu’s political enemies had been quite willing to forget the khalwat episode where he was apprehended with another woman in a Kota Baru hotel in 1995. After all, he had won a discharge and acquittal after two witnesses contradicted each other on the hotel room number.

But now that he is on top, his detractors are digging out the dirt again. A video titled Skandal Sexs Mat Sabu (sex scandal of Mat Sabu) has been making the rounds in the Ampang area. However, the video was apparently about another Pakatan leader.

PAS MP for Parit Buntar Mujahid Yusof accused the mainstream media of picking on Mat Sabu especially after he became the party No. 2.

“He has always been the sort to provoke, and he is bringing the party to a new audience. But why is it that in the last three months, he is always in the media? The media is manipulating it,” said Mujahid.

It is true the media is taking a more intense look at Mat Sabu following his rise in PAS; that is only natural. When one is up there, one cannot go on acting or talking in the same way as when one was down there.

And especially when one is the No. 2 in the party, everything said and done is scrutinised and analysed. Mat Sabu is learning that it is now harder to get away with outlandish statements. He will be held accountable because the public will read the statements as the party’s stand.

Mat Sabu’s latest trouble may also be connected to the way Pakatan politicians have been chipping away at the system and institutions like the judiciary, the police and security forces, and even the civil service. They have questioned the reputation of bodies like the MACC and the Election Commission. These are institutions which they believe have been unfair to them and which are standing in the way of their quest to control Putrajaya.

They are so used to criticising the police that Mat Sabu may not have realised he had stepped beyond the boundary when talking about Bukit Kepong.

The outcry over his remarks is not purely about politics. It is also because there are very few Malay families who do not have a family member or relative in the police or army. As such, criticism of these bodies is bound to hit sensitive nerves all over the place. There is a limit to criticising the men and women who put their lives on the line for our security and well-being.

But Mat Sabu, controversial firebrand and all, was the party’s choice. Members were disenchanted with the passivity of some of their ulama leaders and they saw in Mat Sabu someone who could push their cause on a more political path. He has given them their money’s worth thus far.

He is such a contrast to the studied style of his president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang although some wish that he was a little more like Hadi.

But Mat Sabu will always be Mat Sabu, and the roller-coaster ride he is taking his party on has just begun.