The British Malayan Union realized that the support of the Malays was a necessity as Malayan Union was in desolation and despondency.
The British was in despair and the only forward move that they had was to work with the Malays, the indigenous, as the immigrants were going against the British. They were trying to get the country by themselves and their fight was in the name of independent Malaya.
Apart from the PKM, KMM and many other secret societies the immigrants were active in triad activities and became dangerous for a nation to bear.
Going to the red spot at any big library in the country will provide us the detailed of how serious was the atrocities of the immigrants through PKM, and had cost lives of the people especially the innocent Malays in the remote areas.
The reactions of the local Malays resulted in the bloody incidences in Batu Kikir, Sg Manik and Batu Pahat and these are the incidences that we should put behind us as history and never ever should we go through that anymore.
The British was forced to talk and confer with the Malays and the provision put forward by the Malays was to renounce the Malayan Union.
The British agreed without much more exertion and decided to accept the condition and from then on both side agreed for the formation of the Federation of Malaya.
The Federation of Malaya was to return the power of the Malay Rulers of respective states and the epicenter of administrative powers would be at the Federal Administration.
The Governor General of Malayan Union was to be replaced by High Commissioner for the Federation.
Bahasa Melayu was to be the official language and Islam was to be the official Religion.
The Malay Special Privilege was to be reinstated.
The British then proposed to set up Working Committee to formulate the Federation Constitution and the agreement to be signed between the Federal and the States within the Federation.
The Working Committee was represented by three 3 groups. They are:-
1) The British
2) The Malay Rulers
Representing the British was:
a) A.T Newboult (The Secretary General of the Malayan Union)
b) K.K O’Connors (Attorney General Of the Malayan Union)
c) W.D Godsall (Malayan Union Financial Secretary)
d) Dr. W Lineham and A. William (Malayan Union Public Service Commission)
The Malay Rulers were represented by:-
a) Raja Kamarulzaman (Perak)
b) Dato’ Hamzah Abdullah (Selangor)
c) Dato’ Mohamed Shariff (Kedah)
d) Dato’ Nik Ahmad Kamil (Kelantan)
Representatives of UMNO were:-
a) Dato’ Onn Ja’afar
b) Dato’ Abdul Rahman Mohd Yassin
c) Tuan Haji Megat Yunus (Secretary)
Others in attendance in the Committee were:-
a) Sir Theodore (Adviser for the Malay Rulers)
b) Sir Roland Bradell (Legal Adviser for UMNO)
c) Mr. Ralph Hone (Representing Malcolm MacDonald, the British Governor General
for South East Asia)
d) Mr. D.C Watherson (Secretary)
So in essence the Committee for setting up of the Federation of Malaya was representative of the British and the Malays and their Rulers and no other representation of other races who were not the citizen of Malaya.
The deal was between the Malays as the sons of Malaya and the colonial master, the British. It was a deal that was designed for the British to give back the land to the rightful and original owner, i.e. the Malays.
The Committee was set to deliberate on the formulation of the Constitutions of the Federation in hand-in-glove and to see that the final draft was to be tabled as soon as possible.
For 5 months the Working Committee was busy writing up on the Federation of Malaya Constitutions and finally on the 20th of November 1946 the draft was tabled at a congress with the 3 permanent members; Malay Rulers, UMNO and Malayan Union.
The draft was acknowledged officially, and was formally submitted and tabled at the British Parliament and Cabinet.
On the 5th of December the draft was accepted and the British agreed with all contents of the draft of the Constitution, and on the 1st of February Federation of Malaya was formally formed.
With the formal existence of the Federation of Malaya, it was a major accomplishment of the Malays and their Rulers to liberalize the country from the grip of the Malayan Union.
The Malay Rulers got back their states and with the Federation the Malaya and the long and rough path was cleared and consequentially the Malays were already prepared to work on total independence for Malaya.
It was from then on that the Malays through UMNO started to toy around seriously for total independence and it was from this point that UMNO engaged themselves with the Chinese and Indian and other immigrants to achieve self rule for the Federation of Malaya.
This was about the time when the engagement between UMNO and Chinese as well as the Indians resulted in the formation of Malayan Chinese Association(MCA) and Malayan Indian Congress(MIC) representing two major races and in the end the three racial based parties formed the Alliance long years after that.
Along the way through the negotiations there were many problems faced by the parties especially UMNO when the differences between them resulted in the formation of Opposition Party, Pan Islamic Party(PAS) led by some big names from UMNO.
These four series of articles are only touching on the Malay struggle to reject the Malayan Union.
The struggle for independence may be written at later dates of if there is anyone who wants to spend some boring time to write on it, would be much welcomed.
My reason of writing this part of the nation’s compressed history was nothing more and nothing less to remind everyone not to be deceived by unscrupulous elements with malicious intention to destroy us.
We are all here to ensure that we live in this nation with some kind of sacrifices. If the Malays were historically on records prepared to share with other races, it is only proper and nice for others to reciprocate and withstand some weaknesses idiosyncrasies of each race.
The Chinese have weaknesses that the Malays have been tolerating, and so do with the Indians. Conversely the Chinese and the Indians must not be too stingy to reciprocate the kindness of the Malays.
A line of sincere advice for anyone concerned; ‘Never take friendliness as weaknesses’.
Let us all submit that we are all different from each other. The differences between us are all Gods creation and should be taken as blessings.
As I have said many times God exhibits his greatness by the differences between us. It would be noble deed for everyone to avoid the feelings of prejudices and hatred among the races and religions.
If there is no difference between us there is no element of respect for each other. We have had good times all these years and let us cherish live in civility in perpetuity.
Our sacrifices of today are just for our next generation to live within solace of Malaysian uniqueness and inanimattibility.
I reckon the current animosities were the direct result of innate incapacity of our leaders to manage the nation the way it should.
That is all and I have to terminate these series of article at this point. I hope my upfront opinion is not taken offence by any quarter.
The one ultimate and mandatory intention is ‘we must live in optimum harmony’ within the lines stipulated in our Constitutions.
'Never take friendliness as weaknesses'
You said it right. That is what some are treating us.
They don't know history.
The bit of history you write really helps. Over focusing on professional subjects in school and universities leaves subject of this importance far behind us so much so our younger generation do not know who they are actually.
Many of them do not know their own identity and as such they have strange attitude that does not fit to their own very society.
This should be a cause for worry.
Your noble intentions should be applauded and your sincere advice should be heeded by everybody.
We must have peace and harmony for the present and future generations in this country.
The rakyat must know and appreciate the intrigues, the role of the various communities, the struggle and sacrifices of those involved in wresting this country from the throes of British colonialism in the past.
That's why the promoters of the Satu Sekolah untuk Semua (SSS) proposal by the Demi Negara blogging community ask that history be made a compulsory subject in schools.
Many so-called "liberal", "intellectual" and anti-national elements don't appear to know our own country's history and speak for the ideals of a foreign country like US without due regard to the fact that the history of our country differs and that nations must develop and progress based on their own particular history.
Racial polarisation has been on the increase of late and I would love to see you write about the need to create a united, strong and cohesive Malaysian citizenery thru the 1 School for all proposal. That, if I may say so, would be as big a contribution as your articles on the defence of our race.
Kudos to your excellent contribution and best wishes to you.
It is easy for you to articulate politics as you understand the inner soul of politics especially UMNO.
You know relevant history and now I can see why you are critical over many issue of leadership.
Bro, you just maintain your stand without fear or favor. God willing thing may change slowly but surely.
The problem now is mentality that sticks in the mind of UMNO leaders and members.
That makes them always do the reverse of good things.
Sometimes our nonMalay friends have a bit of reason to feel annoyed by us.
However I agree 100 percent that there has to be tolerances among all races.
Selamat berjuang Aspan.
Reading your writing enhances my nationalistic feelings.
But looking at the conduct of top leadership these days I see them totally different Malay and different quality from those days.
I truly cannot tolerate corruption among them but so far no litigation is done against them.
Shit, everyone is corrupted. No effort is accept corruption as heinous as sodomy as you have been writing weeks ago.
The same corrupt persons are talking about combating corruption.
It so confusing!
I think it's OK if the same corrupt persons are talking about combating corruption. So long as they talk and continue talking about it. They might get committed and really act. Whatever their motive might be - votes, whatever.
Then we hold them to what they say. We have the vote. PRU 13 is not far away.
They know that when the previous PM stood on an anti-corruption platform in PRU 11, the BN won handsomely. But when they themselves became corrupt, at PRU 12 they lost heavily.
The corruption state of affairs in the country is so deplorable. I hate corruption I think as much as you do. For so long nobody bothers to really have a an anti-corruption policy. They only changed the name of BPR to MACC.
The MACC being bureaucrats appeared not have a clear direction, even guideline. Their promotion and Datukship prospects may be at stake. They know where their bread is buttered and have to be careful as to who they prosecute.
The PM has to have the POLITICAL WILL to really crack down on corruption. Give credit where credit is due. He has talked about changing the UMNO Constitution/ party election procedures to control money politics. I think his Deputy has echoed him and announced the Committee looking into the rules amendment. Let's see whether those changes will materialise.
The current PM said he will tackle corruption and announce details of his programme by the end of the month. The only question is will he tackle it by the horn or the usual melepaskan batuk di tangga. It is our job now to provide the chorus, clap our hands and cheer as loudly and as frequently as possible so that he would be brave enough to go for the horn.
I thought you were going to talk about "the value which has been long absent in our politics and government... one of the main issue that made the Malays and Malaysian alike distancing themselves from the ruling BN in the last General Elections especially among the middle class".
I hope you would write about the above/ corruption in one of your coming articles. Especially when the PM has said he would announce anti-corruption measures at the end of the month. Hoping that he would act on corruption big time.
Based on the historical records,
"So in essence the Committee for setting up of the Federation of Malaya was representative of the British and the Malays and their Rulers and no other representation of other races who were not the citizen of Malaya."
Yes, the non-Malays were not citizens of Malaya at that time. In fact they were stateless people under British colonial rule. Yes, there were NO non-Malays represented at the talks on the formation of the Federation of Malaya.
These salient facts must be recognised and remembered by the chauvinist, subversive and anti-national elements in the country now. The so-called "Malaysian Malaysia", "equal right" and "justice" shouting crowd must be thankful for the Malays agreeing that the non-Malays be given citizenship in the Federation of Malaya when formed. The ungrateful fellows must show gratitude and respect the Special Malay Rights that are written in the Constitution of the country.
Those who have got citizenship by the generosity of the Malays must not be asking for more, more and more and talk about equality and justice as if the Constitution does not exist. That's how they should "give back" for what the Malays have "given them" - citizenship. Whatever more they get is at the expense of the malays. It is not good and creates ill feelings. Special Malay Rights and citizenship have been written in the Constitution. People should not question them, let alone try to undermine them. It does not augur well for peace in the country.
By and large the non-Malays do recognise and accept the above. It's only the ungrateful, selfish and trouble-making "Malaysian Malaysia" crowd, the Chin Peng and MCP-admiring and the subversive fellows. Let's keep reminding them the historical facts and if they still refuse to accept them, they should really find some other place to live.
The peace loving non-Malays can live harmoniously with the Malays and be assured that their rights are protected under the Constitution of the country. We must have a peaceful and prosperous Malaysia for us, our children, grandchildren and those after them.
Yr recollections of the past Malayan histories form part of the memories into the coming of age of Malaysia.
As u said - its yr personal understanding.
For those who r serious about M'sia history, it should read together with THE MEMOIRS OF MUSTAPHA HUSSAIN, 1910-1957. & for that matter Chin Peng's & Lee Kuan Yew's memos. Also Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka!
There r also a lot of other alternatives infos, least of all those official documents from the British colonial offices, that only recently been de-classified.
These give a different prospective about the period of Malayan/Malaysia where u have rather 'strong' mono-ethnical inputs.
History r multi-layers. No single source is The Truth - they r all circumspect caused by events that r un-controllable & yet chaotic.
So how can it be a single effort from single source????
anomie, your opinion is great and right.
As for this particular piece I am actually writing the period of formation of Malayan Union and there are lot of details and the intricacies related to the period which I have not written.
Long writing may make people feel bored.
Anyway you are giving me good input at least. Your inputs make me more eager to go to the libraries which I did too little all the while.
Thanks bro. We shall keep on this interaction.
Must we read Chin Peng and LKY's memos? What can we expect of them?
Sure Chin Peng would claim he is a nationalist. He was not even Malaysian as Tan Sri Professor Khoo pointed out. Sure he would not talk about the clandestine meetings with Comintern personalities who brought messages from Mao Tse Dong and others. Sure he would play down his visits to China.
What good would his memoirs do us? Tell the disgruntled in this country to go into the jungles and murder innocent people just to bring about a state of alarm and despondency that would facilitate their achieving their agenda? No, certainly not. His writings should be banned - aren't they bbanned? He is a terrorist, for goodness sake.
As far LKY is concerned, his activities that led to Tengku A Rahman to kick Singapore out of Malaysia are telling enough. His "Malaysian Malaysia" concept did not reflect an acknowledgement of the facts of history that Aspan has tried hard to put across, did not show acceptance of provisions in the Constitution regarding Special Malay Rights. Why should the remnants of his PAP in Malaysia and the adherents of his concept talk about equality and justice vis-a-vis Special Malay Rights if they accept the very Social Contract that their forefathers/ non-Malay leaders agreed to at Merdeka?
They shout out about freedom when Big Brother is always on the wall in Singapore and, as Tun Dr Mahathir pointed out, the recent law passed by their Parliament (which has only 2 opposition members) authorises their Police to accost any individual walking along the park - an individual can form an assembly. With this kind of thinking, can whatever LKY write be good to our Malaysian audience.
I wonder the motive of Anomie's comment.
See what I mean - when there r people like anons15 July 2009 03:44:00/15 July 2009 12:25:00.
Very single minded. Holding the torch of racial 'maruah'? Or just plainly dont want to acknowledge or facing the REAL truth?
More so when one's trying to define THE History of a nation via individual records. And how many of these 'records' r truly unbiased, whether by choice or circumstances? & how do one reach the ultimate truth iff not going through the records of friends & foes. Within all these records there r truths & fallacies, sometimes it's hard to distinguish which r which.
No single source HAS a monopoly the the whole truth.
My motive? Here it's;
History r multi-layers. No single source is The Truth - they r all circumspect caused by events that r un-controllable & yet chaotic.
That's the essence of a nationhood.
I also feel sad when there are people like anomie. Asked for his motive, he merely repeats the statement, "History r multi-layers. No single source is The Truth - they r all circumspect caused by events that r un-controllable & yet chaotic."
Going by his statement, you'll never get the truth of the history of any country. Just because the events are "uncontrollable .. yet chaotic", they are "all circumspect", "No single source is The Truth." Does he mean that no history of any country in the world can be relied upon? Very strange.
Yet he implies that there is such thing he calls as "THE REAL TRUTH". Is that the one only told by him or the ones he agrees with?
I think he and I have different objectives, different beliefs. His objective may be academic. Mine is the practical need of bringing about unity among Malaysians thru understanding and acceptance of the role of the various communities pre and during the fight for independence.
He may believe in liberalism, equality and justice without due regard for the relevant provisions of the Constitution. He might even say there is no real truth in the Constitution. I subscribe to the belief that even the Americans, the acclaimed most liberal people in the world, have come to believe: that the anti-national and destructive elements in and outside the country must not be allowed to destroy the country. In Malaysia, the ISA, in the US, Guantanamo Bay detention without trial.
I wonder how he would justify that in terms of the so-called "layers of history". So, no real truth in the existence of Guantanamo Bay, or in the Americans believing in detention without trial, or what? What sources of information would he consider bear "the real truth" in this particular case?
I suppose he would say no real truth in the existence of Hitler, or that British imperialism and colonial policies the world over were good. So which sources are unbiased? Wikipedia sources, Wikipedia history? I'm concerned about the attempt in recent times to re-write the history of the country according to "unbiased sources" that are perhaps approved by anomie and like-minded people.
We have fundamental differences, he and I. Alas there are only inches of column space and I do not wish to engage in an academic exercise or a futile discussion. Let him stick to his objective and belief, and I mine.
Pan ,macam biasa ,saya hantar tulisan you ini kepada email list saya,sayang banyak yg kurang faham english..nak kena terjemahkan...orang yg hampir dengan dengan peristiwa peristiwa sebelum merdeka dan menyaksikan bagaimana perjumpaan perjumpaan Datuk Onn Jafar ialah anaknya yg masih hidup.
Penubuhan Negara Malaya ada lah unik,tak ada negara dalam dunia ini yg sama dengannya...memang dari mulanya tiada equality namum ianya adalah contract social yg telah di persetujui di antara orang melayu dan kaum pendatang waktu itu yg ingin tinggal kekal di Malaya,mereka ada pilihan untuk balik kenegara asal mereka sekiranya mereka tak mahu terima "the unequality"
Saya sokong pendapat penulis 16 July @ 00:25 MYT.
Sabenar nya, jika mereka terima Kontrak Sosial dan hormati Perlembgaan negara yang merangkumi persetujuan di antara pemimpin pemimpin berbagai kaum di rundingan sabelom Merdeka itu, mereka boleh rasa ada “equality”. Masaelah nya mereka tidak mahu terima. Jika tidak terima, mereka tidak menghormati Perlembagaan negara. Jika tidak menghormati dan hidup dengan Perlembagaan negara, mereka tidak setia kapada negara ini. Sesiapa yang tidak setia perlu tinggalkan negara ini dan pergi tinggal di tempat lain yang mereka hormati atau idami.
Tujuan orang orang saperti anomie di atas ada lah curiga. Saya ada terbaca komen komen mengatakan di Singapura mereka coba tulis sejarah bahru yang meminimakan peranan kaum Melayu, melebihkan peranan kaum mereka. Di sana mereka majoriti. Di sini mereka minoriti pun ada yang bertujuan yang sama. Kita mesti berwaspada kapada kumpulan saperti ini.
Memang kita harus baca penulisan penulisan musuh dan lain lain nya untuk mendapat tahu pemikiran mereka. Tetapi tidak secara umum. Mungkin untuk tujuan tujuan tertentu. Mungkin untuk ahli sejarah atau para akedemik atau jenderal jenderal kita. Tapi pada satu peringkat ahli sejarah dan akedemik pun mesti akui kebenaran dan nyatakan kebenaran itu. Saperti Chin Peng dan KPM itu ada lah kumpulan penjahat pengganas, bukan nasionalis. Chin Peng bukan rakyat Malaya/ Malaysia, saperti kata Professor Tan Sri Khoo Kay Peng. Ini semua sudah menjadi kebenaran sejarah berpuluh tahun. Tapi kalau mencadangkan tidak ada kebenaran dalam sejarah, sebalik nya menonjolkan ada pendapat lain yang harus benar, itu membayangkan tujuan tidak baik sesiapa yang berbuat demikian.
Some say they cannot dissent because the moment they do they are accused of being disloyal.
No, that's not the argument.
The argument is: you cannot dissent on the Social Contract because your forefathers have signed that contract, so to speak. Just like we cannot dissent on your citizenship right, you cannot dissent on the Special Malay Rights, which was in exchange for the non-Malay citizenship Right.
It follows from that fact: you cannot dissent on all the Articles of the Constitution, including on Bahasa Malaysia, because it is sacrosanct, because our forefathers have taken a lot of pains to discuss, negotiate and agree, and those agreed points were used by the British constitutional experts draw up the Constitution.
More than that: the draft Constitution was discussed and deliberated by the elected representatives of the various communities in Parliament. Once passed by Parliament, they were enacted, they became law - the highest set of laws of the country, all other laws were derived from the Constitution.
If, after all those processes, they still dissent, isn't it fair that they be called not loyal to the country? And, if they are not loyal to the country, don't wish to abide by the Constitution, they should know the option available to them.
I think it must be made plain and simple to everybody.
To anon15 July 2009 20:14:00 MYT, well said u as in;
‘Let him stick to his objective and belief, and I mine.’
Once a mind is formed only just to see a side that ONLY pleases thy heart, all OTHER causes r lost.
BTW, yr juxtaposition of my interpretations r really interesting! Such a creative mind! Go ponder more deeply, ok?
To Anon16 July 2009 08:50:00 MYT,
Another creative interpretation, as iff all written laws r etched in granite. Don’t forget the only constant in nature is change. For that matter - change with time & be relevant.
A lot of people mis-interpret Darwin’s origin of species! It’s not the strongest that survive, it’s the most adaptable that last the eon! Look at T-Rex? The strongest & the most fear & yet cant even last as long as that mischievous cockroach!
The social contract is a myth, period. Many Malay M'sians have acknowledged this fact. Even R Prof Ungku Aziz said it.
It was only first ‘created’ by Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad in a speech in 1986 in Singapore. From then on its usage caught on like wild fire among the torch bearer of ketuanan promoters. It has NO historical relevancy to the founding of Malaysia – been a recent imagination!
‘you cannot dissent on all the Articles of the Constitution’
What sort of thinking is that!!!!! A T-Rex mind-set????
Let’s go back to nature; a set of rules works because of certain prevailing requirements & circumstances. When those constraints NO longer exist or relevant then another set of rules must be created to maintain the clock-work of nature. Otherwise, the die-hard stubborn old-rule-followers will simply be eliminated through the natural process. This is the rule of Mother Nature.
So from this angle let see what’s that argument about dissent & loyalty.
Since Merdeka, the Malaysian Constitution has been amended more than 600 times, just to suit the fancy of the power that were. So who dissent the Articles of the Constitution? Who is holding the Constitution sacrosanct?
BTW, the Malaysia Constitution has provided a ‘caveat’ in the form of the Reid Commission. What happen to that findings & recommendations? Conveniently, being the water under the bridge?
& yet there r people still hold strongly to those clauses they think r sacrosanct to them ONLY!
Wasn’t the Reid Commission was the results of ‘our forefathers have taken a lot of pains to discuss, negotiate and agree, and those agreed points were used by the British constitutional experts draw up the Constitution.’????
More to that it's also subjected to the due process of ‘the draft Constitution was discussed and deliberated by the elected representatives of the various communities in Parliament. Once passed by Parliament, they were enacted, they became law - the highest set of laws of the country, all other laws were derived from the Constitution.’
Even the Americans, who hold truth strongly to the sacrosanct of their Constitution, have amendments made to the relevant clauses to bring it up to date.
They just did it more carefully & very much less frequent than our ‘politicians’. They do treat their Constitution Sacrosanct to the dot.
‘And, if they are not loyal to the country, don't wish to abide by the Constitution; they should know the option available to them.’
An open threat?
This people just cannot accept contrarian views & look at the bone of the issue. Yet they r really good at picking bones out from the egg!
Be gone & continue yr T-Rex way. Do enjoy yr last few shadow of the sunset before all is dark for u!
This must be made plain and simple to these dinosaurs that out-live their time.
This anomie fellow began by applauding ‘Let him stick to his objective and belief, and I mine.’
Then he criticised people in rather strong terms. He began being rude and personal, suggesting people having "A T-Rex mind-set". He is getting worrisome, this so-called "liberal" man, isn't he? I'll nevertheless still let him stick to his objective, whatever that may be.
I don't think I wish to engage this fellow any more. I believe he is the diehard kind and it would not serve any purpose in doing so.
I'll just state in parting that we have a history different from others. Each country must develop based on its own history, its own values developed from the experiences of its peoples.
He quotes the American case again. There you go.
Yes, China changed its entire constitution - to that of Communism. Hope that is not his objective.
I will refrain from calling him names. I'll just say a plain good bye.
History is history. No such thing as layers in history. Whoever creates layers of history, that person must have the intention to confuse his generation.
The very brief of history that I have written is real and legitimate one as all that are written by me are documented with all agreements available for one to see and read.
I don't get the habit of writing stories by I do a bit of rewriting real history.
I don't enjoy confusing my generation with history as that is so unfair to mislead my generation. I feel I am committing a great sin if I were to do that.
Appreciate yr explanation. And I've not said anything otherwise about yr writings.
Let's agree to disagree - history is indeed multi-layers.
It's like a Rahsoman - A heinous crime and its aftermath are recalled from differing points of view.
Although history does record happy events.
One thing we must all remember, official history is always written from the view-points of the victor. But that doesnt eliminate the other facts sourced from the conquered.
Thus, this is already two layers of the same history!
The future generation must have access to all facts, from friends & foes, to be the rightful judge.
dear anomie, dalam kes history of malayan union, kita masih ada saksi yang masih hidup.Saya pernah berbincang dengan general Jaafar Onn anak Datuk Onn. Dia yang masih hidup,dan mengikut beliau. pernah menyaksikan perjumpaan perjumpaan dan mengikuti perbincangan perbincangan yang di adakan oleh bapanya di rumahnya, Di johore.Dan Datuk Jafaar ada menulis satu buku bertajuk "UMNO dan Malayan Union",ceritanya tak ada beza dgn En aspan.
Sebenarnya apa yang Anomie nak kata seorang itu tak perlu akur akan perjanjiannya,seperti contract social yg di perkatakan,datuk nenek mereka (Pendatang) bersetuju waktu itu kerana terdesak,maka mereka kata pada diri mereka "terima dulu perjanjian ini,nanti bila agak selesa kita minta tukar perjanjian,- agaknya macam ini lah maksuk anomie...Seorang itu tak perlu pegang janji...bermakna dalam Islam ini di kira seorang munafik dan Islam ada undang undang untuk orang yang langkar perjanjian.
Dalam kes kontrak social ini, Orang Pas tak perlu bimbang:ini bukan ashobiah pasal perjanjian itu suka sama suka seperti perjanjian Madina, betul tak Pan?
Anon16 July 2009 21:52:00 MYT,
Ni jawaban saya terakhir tentang isu tu.
Seperti kau tertulis, masih juga ada saksi LAIN yang masih hidup terlibat dlm kes history of malayan union.
Ada kah kau baca THE MEMOIRS OF MUSTAPHA HUSSAIN, 1910-1957? Juga Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka?
Tu yg perspesi lain dari sudut org umno!
"terima dulu perjanjian ini,nanti bila agak selesa kita minta tukar perjanjian”
Tu yg juga cakapan kau diri sendiri s’ja!
From the perspective of none umno people (whether Malay or non-Malay), there r already many broken promises.
Holding true to compromises is a MUST for a long term relationship. But when those ‘compromises’ r one way traffic, leaning acutely towards one race only? Then those compromises don’t hold truth anymore – simply because been compromises there must be mutual benefits among agreeing parties. Moreover, the circumstances leading to those compromises must be taken into account.
Nothing is etched into the stone - except death (tax???)
And pls don’t bring up the make-belief of citizenship vis-à-vis Malay special position!
I wont go deep into religious aspect – bcoz what happens NOW don’t match the teachings of any religion.
Now that the "multi-layer history" fellow has apparently signed off, please allow me to continue the discussion along the line of the normal, well-established and amply-documented history of our country.
May I quote the statement made in a paper for the IFF Summer University 2008 (a restatement of historical facts, not "multi-layered history!):
"One of the central pillars of the 1957 Malayan Constitution was the inter-communal compromises enshrined in the document. These compromises, which sought to safeguard the rights and interests of all communities, can be traced to the joint memorandum submitted to the Reid Constitutional Commission by the Alliance Parties. The memorandum was a creation of negotiations between the Alliance parties in 1956. The Alliance parties were a coalition between UMNO (representing the Malays), MCA (representing the Chinese) and MIC (representing the Indians).
"The inter-communal compromise reached between the Malays and the non-Malays was on the issue of citizenship. The Malays agreed to allow the non-Malays to obtain citizenship and enjoy the rights of a citizen. In exchange, the non-Malays agreed to accept the dominance of the Malay rulers, the special position of the Malays, Islam as the religion of the Federation and Malay language as the official language of the country."
We find so many such statements as the above, yet the fellow doesn't accept it and refuses even to hear about it. What ingratitude! And he has the cheek to tell people to read about Chin Peng and the MCP.
His motive is suspect, to say the least and, as far as I'm concerned, his offer of his latest comment being the last is accepted and good riddance. In law, when there is an offer and an acceptance of the offer is made, a contract comes into being. Hope he won't break this new contract made in your blog. He is prone to saying people break all sorts of contracts - he doesn't even recognise the Social Contract among the races at Merdeka.
Now let's leave him aside and get on with our effort at bringing about greater understanding of the roles of the various communities in Malayan / Malaysian history so that the current widening polarisation in the country can be reduced - without the fellow throwing a spanner in the works.
Good day to you all.
compromises...itulah key wordnya.orang melayu buat kesilapan besar kerana compromises banyak sangat...Kita boleh Merdeka tanpa compromises.tinggal lagi kita nak short cut nak cepat merdeka, kita kurang sabar...banyak lah kita kena korban.akhirnya boleh bilang compromises mereka kepada kita ..bahasa saja sudah lah ..yang jadi wakil rakyat pun tak reti bahasa Malaysia.ini lah pelajaran orang melayu kena belajar.Baca blog Tun M http://chedet.co.cc/chedetblog/2008/11/siew-sin-on-sino-malay-relatio.html, Nov tahun lepas ada keluarkan ucapan Tan siew sin,.apa yg dikatakan compromises yg paling bodoh UMNO, menukar clausa kelayakan untuk kerayataan.qoute: "To give effect to this sympathy, a provision was inserted in the constitution itself to the effect that "good character" meant any person who had not been in jail during the period of three years preceding his application for citizenship.
"This was the main stumbling block to the acquisition of citizenship in colonial days. With the removal of this barrier, it was possible to admit approximately one million new citizens within 12 months of Merdeka and, of this number, roughly 800,000 were Chinese. If the Malays had been against giving a fair deal to the Chinese in the matter of citizenship, they would not have allowed such a situation to develop."..yg lain baca lah
Sepatutnya kita bertegas lagi seperti Indon
Setuju. Banyak sangat compromises.
Saya rasa Tengku A Rahman main peranan besar pada masa itu. Dia tu baik hati punya orang. Dia percaya semua maanusia baik sehingga di buktikan tidak baik. Kadang kadang nak tunggu bukti, nasi sudah jadi bubur. LKY semankin melanda landa dengan konsep "Malaysian Malaysia" nya.
Bila dia geram, "tendang" Singapore keluar Malaysia konon. Lihat betapa susah, betapa menyayat hati di buat LKY sejak itu. Dia masih meneruskan hati busuk "driving a wedge" di sana sini. Rosmah di jumpai nya, TDM di snub nya di di negara kita sendiri. Apa jenis maanusia ni?
Sekarang saya khuatir ke mana arah 1 Malaysia. Nampak nya masih lagi "compromise". Pada saya nampak berat sabelah. Liberalisasi ekonomi, buang PPSMI tapi benarkan PPSM dalam bahasa vernakular.
Tahun 1969 lagi Tun Tan Siew Sin dah kata Melayu sudah "generous enough", menyetujui kerakyatan bagi bukan Melayu di masa Merdeka, kemudian melonggarkan peraturan pengeluaran sijil kerakyatan salepas Merdeka. Dalam tahun 2004 pulak, Melayu setuju beri 10% tempat di MARA.
Cukup lah being "generous enouh", Melayu! Apa kita dapat dari mereka? Ada yang tidak akui Kontrak Sosial, tidak hormati Perlembagaan yang merangkumi intipati Kontrak Sosial itu.
Post a Comment