Struggle Ethnic Unity

7/27/2019 Struggle Ethnic Unity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/struggle-ethnic-unity 1/14

Struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after WWII (Pt 1)

Written by Ariffin Omar

Monday, 28 December 2009 19:27

History

British duplicity and collusion of the Malay elitecontributed to keeping the various communities apart and made the struggle for a united nation state post-Malayan Union a distant dream.

In our study of Malaysian history we are always told that the best approach for

achieving unity in this plural society is the Barisan Nasional way. In other

words only by having race based parties that are able to come to some degree

of understanding and cooperation can we achieve a fragile unity and some

measure of peace in this country. However such a view is indeed erroneous

because there were attempts to achieve a meaningful unity among the various

ethnic communities based on shared common values and willingness to give

and take. These attempts were not successful because of political and social factors that were not conducive towards establishing a genuineunity in Malaya.

In order to understand why we are trapped in the maze of ethnic and racial politics today, we must examine the past to see what went

wrong.

To begin our discussion we will start with the Malayan Union. The Malayan Union was introduced by the British immediately after the

end of the Second World War. In order to implement their plan, the British had to obtain the agreement of the traditional rulers in the

Malay states. The aim of the Malayan Union was to integrate the large Chinese community and the smaller Indian one into a Malayan

polity with a sense of ‘Malayaness’.

The British also wanted to do away with the cumbersome pre-war administrative structures comprising 10 government units consisting of

the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang and the Unfederated Malay States of Johor, Kedah, Perlis,

Kelantan and Terengganu and the Straits Settlements comprising of Penang, Singapore and Malacca. The British wanted to integrate theminto a single, centrally controlled state with Singapore as a separate entity. Finally, the long-term goal of the British was to lead Malaya to

independence.

To carry out their plan it was necessary to reorganize citizenship qualifications whereby 83 per cent of the Chinese and 75 per cent of the

Indians would qualify for citizenship under very liberal laws. The British also intended up open up the Civil Service – hitherto a British

and Malay preserve – to all communities.1

The Malay sultans would forfeit their positions as heads of their respective states but retain authority only in Islam. In other words, the

British wanted to create a new ‘nation state’ from scratch and Tanah Melayu and other symbols cherished by the Malays as well as the

bangsa Melayu would cease to exist. The bangsa Melayu would be subsumed into a bangsa Malayan that would encompass the Malays,

Chinese and Indians.

2.25 million Malays, 3 million Malayans

The British were well aware that the Malays refused to be categorized

as Malayans since they saw that term as a British creation that served

the interests of the colonial regime. It was even recorded that, “a

Malay is a member of the Malay race; a Malayan is a person of any

other origin who happens to live in Malaya. There are 2,250,000

Malays; and 3,050,000 Malayans.???2

Therefore, it was clear that this scheme would not be popular among

the Malay sultans but the British felt that through blackmail and

coercion they might succeed in their plans.3

Harold MacMichael, a senior colonial administrator, was dispatched to

the Malay states as the British representative and through threats and

intimidation he succeeded in obtaining the ‘consent’ of the Malay

Page 1 of 7Struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after WWII (Pt 1)

16/07/2011http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?view=article&catid=184%3Abritish-colony&id=1...



sultans to the formation of the Malayan Union.4 The British felt that if

they could coerce the sultans into accepting their Malayan Union

scheme, the Malay rakyat would fall in line and accept their rulers’ abject surrender to the British scheme.

However, the British underestimated the opposition of the Malay masses to the Malayan Union scheme. When the Malays saw how utterly

powerless the sultans were in protecting their status, rights and privileges as well as maintaining their identity as a bangsa, they reacted

swiftly by re-establishing their pre-war state associations and opposed both the British and their sultans for signing away the sovereignty

of the Malay states and agreeing to the Malayan Union Agreement whereby the Malay states effectively became colonies of Great Britain.

In introducing the Malayan Union, the British had sowed the seeds of enmity and distrust between the Malays and the non-Malays in the

Malay states. Thus any attempt at rapprochement between the various ethnic groups was now impossible. Before the war, the so called

‘pro-Malay’ policy of the British has alienated the non-Malays because it was seen to favour and benefit the Malays at the expense of the

non-Malays. But after the war, the Malayan Union had alienated the Malays by abolishing their rights and giving unrestricted citizenship

rights to non-Malays. Thus British policies in the Malay states had always kept the various communities apart in a country which now had

a plural society.5

Opposition to Malayan Union

The emergence of the various state associations such

as Persatuan Melayu Selangor , Persatuan Melayu

Perak and Persatuan Melayu Pahang meant thatMalay ethnic-based associations were now taking

centre stage and that it would be impossible to

displace them. In addition, new association such as

Perikatan Melayu Perak and Pemuda Melayu Kedah

came into existence. The targets of their enmity were

the British, the Malay sultans who had betrayed their

rakyat and the non-Malays who were now seen as

beneficiaries of the Malayan Union as they would

soon be citizens enjoying the full rights of citizenship.

At the same time, the Malays – who saw themselves

as the rightful owners of the Malay states – felt they

would be marginalized and reduced to a minoritycommunity as well as relegated to the periphery of

social, political and economic development.6

In the ongoing struggle waged by the Malay community against the Malayan Union, the sultans caved in first as they realized that without

the support of their rakyat their positions as sultans would be meaningless. They disavowed the Malayan Union and joined the masses in

opposing it.

While the British now faced the wrath of the Malays who were determined to bring down their scheme, the non-Malays suffered collateral

damage as they were seen as a threat just because the British had planned to give them some political and social rights in addition to the

economic advantages that they already had. The British had cynically roped the non-Malays into their scheme because they were useful

pawns in the attempt to dilute Malay power. In addition, they wanted to ensure if the Malayan Union came to fruition, the non-Malays

would always be beholden to the British for the favour done to them and that they would always support the British in checking any

challenge by the Malays to British domination.7

However, the moment the British realized that Malay opposition to the Malayan Union was formidable and it posed a very serious

challenge to their domination, they had second thoughts about their scheme.8

The British quickly abandoned the non-Malays in order to

accommodate the demands of the Malay elite.

Since the sultans had failed to protect the Malay bangsa, the Malay masses now turned to the United Malays National Organization

(Umno) which was formed in March 1946 under the brilliant leadership of Onn Jaafar to oppose the Malayan Union and the Malay sultans

who signed the agreement. But after the sultans recanted and disavowed the Malayan Union they were out of the line of fire and Umno

concentrated its energies on opposing the British and the non-Malays.9

To begin with, Umno was an ethno-centric organization composed of the various state organizations mentioned earlier. At the time of its

inception, Umno had no idea or concept of nation, nationhood, nationalism or independence. It was not a nationalist party that was fighting

to throw off the yoke of colonial rule as was the case in many other Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam or Burma.





Umno was not fighting for independence but for continued protection of the Malays under continued British colonial rule for as long as

necessary.10

If the British had not introduced the Malayan Union in 1946 but had carried on in the same manner as before the war, it was unlikely that

Umno, a pan-Malayan Malay movement would have emerged since the Malay elite found little there was to quarrel about British rule.

While there would still be the usual griping in the Malay press about the lack of social and economic progress of the Malays as was the

case during the late 1920s and 1930s, precious little would be done to implement any meaningful policy that would bring about substantial

changes within the Malay community because an educated and economically progressive Malay community would threaten the position of

the Malay elite and their complacent relations with the British.

In hoping that the British would return to the status quo ante that existed before 1941, Umno was in effect perpetuating ethnic divisions

where in theory Malay rights and privileges would be protected (at least in theory) while the non-Malays were seen and categorized as

transients that would have no stake in the country and could be dispensed with as and when it was expedient to do so.11

Alternative: Federation of Malaya

However, it soon became clear that the status quo ante could no longer be maintained and that the British had to do away with the

cumbersome pre-war administrative structure. In the political flux after the Second World War, there was no longer any possibility of

reverting to the administrative system that existed in 1941. Thus we must examine critically what was the alternative to the Malayan Union

and whether that alternative would promote ethnic integration among the various communities in Malaya and lead to the creation of a

united nation state.

It should be noted that for the British what mattered most to them was that they would have able to bring the various Malay states as well

as the settlements of Penang and Malacca under centralized control. This would serve their political and economic interests very well.

British economic interests were substantial and a united Malaya would serve their interest considerably.

The Malayan Union ceased to exist in January 1948. When we examine the Federation of Malaya Agreement that replaced it, we can

determine that it benefited three parties: \the British, the Malay rulers and the Malay elite within Umno.

Stockwell quoting from British sources notes that though the Malayan Union was withdrawn, the British succeeded on two counts in

gaining what they really wanted. First, the MacMichael Treaties (though finally abrogated) gave the British immense advantages in the

1946-47 constitutional talks with the Malay elite. The latter had to agree to a federal form of closer union since the Malayan Union

framework was the background for renegotiations as well as accepting a scheme of citizenship for the non-Malays.

Second and more important, the Federation of Malaya Agreement retained key elements from the Malayan Union though they survive in

such a diluted form as to be unrecognizable.12

The Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 that replaced the Malayan Union did not create a nation state nor did it bring about unity

amongst the various communities of Malaya’s plural society. It was not a Melayu nation nor was it a Malayan nation. It was just a political

arrangement leading to the birth of a political entity.13

The mythical sovereignty of the sultans as well as the individuality of the states was

maintained. Malay special privileges were upheld. However a strong central government with legislative powers was established under

British control.14

Citizenship was made more restrictive because of Malay fears that the Chinese would overwhelm them numerically and also because there

were doubts at that time as to the loyalty of the Chinese towards the Malay states.

But by no means can the Federation of Malay be considered a triumph for the Malays because sovereignty was not in their hands. There

were no national symbols such as a national language, a flag or a national identity that would be accepted by all. The federal council was

established and its members were nominated by the British. Even though the English name of the political entity that replaced the Malayan

Union was known as the Federation of Malaya, legally it was named Persekutuan Tanah Melayu thus maintaining the illusion that the

British conceded to the creation of a Melayu nation.

The fact that there were two contradictory descriptions of the same political entity replacing the Malayan Union emphasized even more the

schism that existed between the Malays and non-Malays. For the Malays, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu meant that the country was a Malay

country exclusive to the Malays while non-Malays saw it as a federation with a Malayan identity that embraced all the ethnic communities

including the Malays.

Thus British duplicity as well as the collusion of the Malay elite contributed to keeping the various communities apart and made the

struggle for a united nation state a distant dream. That the Malay elite at that point was not even prepared to accept the emergence of anation state was very obvious in the fact that the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu bestowed citizenship but not nationality.15 The non-Malays

were only given citizenship rights. They were not even referred to as Malayans in the final report. The term ‘Malayan’ thus had no legal

status.





Part 2: The Putera-AMCJA counter proposal of a People’s Constitution was a missed opportunity for the term ‘Melayu’ – that would not

have carried any religious or cultural connotations – to designate a nationality for the non-Malays.

__________________________________________________

Ariffin S.M. Omar is assoc. prof. in International Studies at UUM. He is a founding member and former president of Aliran. He has

published Bangsa Melayu: Malay Concepts of Democracy and Community 1945-50 (Oxford University Press, 1993) and edited a volume

on The Bumiputra Policy: Dynamics and Dilemmas (USM Press, 2005). His essay ‘The struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after theSecond World War’ is published in the book Multiethnic Malaysia — Past Present and Future (2009).

_________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] K.J. RATNAM, COMMUNALISM AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS IN MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR:

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA PRESS, 1965, P.75.

[2] MICHAEL ARDIZZONE, A NATION IS BORN, LONDON, 1946, P.34.

[3] THE BRITISH INTENDED TO BRING UP TWO ISSUES TO THE MALAY RULERS IN ORDER TO

BRING THEM TO HEEL. ONE WAS THE ISSUE OF COLLABORATION WITH THE JAPANESE ARMY

AND THE OTHER WAS CONFIRMATION BY THE BRITISH CONCERNING THEIR POSITION AS HEAD

OF THEIR STATES SINCE SOME OF THESE SULTANS HAD ASCENDED THEIR THRONES DURING

THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION AND THEY NEEDED TO BE CONFIRMED AS RULERS BY THE BRITISH.

[4] THERE ARE SEVERAL STUDIES ON THE MALAYAN UNION THAT COULD BE READ BY THOSE

INTERESTED IN OBTAINING MORE INFORMATION. AMONG THE BETTER WORKS ARE JAMES DE V.

ALLEN, THE MALAYAN UNION, NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY, 1967; A. J. STOCKWELL, BRITISH

POLICY AND MALAY POLITICS DURING THE MALAYAN UNION EXPERIMENT, 1942-1948,

MONOGRAPH NO. 8, KUALA LUMPUR: MBRAS.

[5] THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL BRITISH PLAN TO APPLY A POLICY OF DIVIDE AND RULE IN THE

MALAY STATES. HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT IT WAS BRITISH ECONOMIC POLICY

THAT LED TO THE ENTRY OF VAST NUMBERS OF CHINESE AND INDIANS INTO THE MALAY

STATES IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY TO THE POINT THAT THE MALAYS BECAME A MINORITY

IN SOME MALAY STATES.

[6] THE MALAY ELITE HAD ALWAYS POINTED OUT THAT THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO SHARE

THE FATE OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS WHO NOW LIVE IN RESERVATIONS AND WHO ARE

COMPLETELY MARGINALIZED FROM ANY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS

BEING POLITICALLY IMPOTENT.

[7] THIS VIEW WAS EXPRESSED TO ME BY SEVERAL CHINESE MALAYSIANS WHO LIVED

THROUGH THAT PERIOD AND WHO ARE NOW IN THE MID 70S OR EARLY 80S. SOME OF THEM

STATED THAT THEY DID NOT ASK FOR THE MALAYAN UNION AND THAT IT WAS THE BRITISH

WHO HAD PLANNED THE WHOLE THING WITHOUT CONSULTING ANY OF THE COMMUNITIES IN

MALAYA.

[8] IT WAS THE MALAYAN UNION GOVERNOR EDWARD GENT WHO RECOMMENDED THAT THEMALAYAN UNION BE SCRAPPED AND REPLACED BY ANOTHER POLITICAL ARRANGEMENT THAT

WOULD ACCOMMODATE MALAY DEMANDS.





Add New SearchComments (7)

29-12-2009|

[9] WHILE THE SULTAN OF KEDAH AND PERAK OBJECTED TO THE MALAYAN UNION AND WERE

FORCED TO SIGN, THERE WERE OTHERS WHO SIGNED BECAUSE THEY WERE MERELY THINKING

OF THEIR OWN SELF-INTERESTS OR BECAUSE THEY HAD JUST ASCENDED THEIR THRONES AND

NEEDED BRITISH CONFIRMATION TO REMAIN AS SULTANS. THE SULTANS WERE AWARE OF THE

FATE OF SULTAN ALI OF TERENGGANU WHO WAS DETHRONED BY THE BRITISH AND THE FATE

THAT BEFELL SYED HAMZAH OF PERLIS WHO DISCREETLY STEPPED DOWN TO AVOIDPROBLEMS.

[10] UMNO WAS WILLING TO PUT ITS FAITH IN THE BRITISH PLEDGES MADE BEFORE THE WAR

AND IN PAST TREATIES THAT THEY WOULD SAFEGUARD MALAY INTERESTS EVEN THOUGH THE

BRITISH HARDLY DID ANYTHING TO UPLIFT AND DEVELOP THE MALAYS ECONOMICALLY AND

SOCIALLY. THE FEAR OF THE NON-MALAYS WAS SO OVERWHELMING THAT FOR UMNO

CONTINUED COLONIAL RULE WAS PREFERABLE TO ANY ATTEMPT TO WORK WITH THE NON-

MALAYS TO WREST INDEPENDENCE FROM THE BRITISH.

[11] SEE MOHAMAD NOORDIN SOPIEE, FROM MALAYAN UNION TO SINGAPORE SEPARATION:POLITICAL UNIFICATION IN THE MALAYSIA REGION, 1945- 1965, KUALA LUMPUR: PENERBIT

UNIVERSITI MALAYA, 1974, P. 26. SEE ALSO UTUSAN MELAYU, 15 MARCH 1946 WHERE POINT 6 OF

THE PROTEST CABLE SENT TO ENGLAND SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR A RETURN TO THE PRE-1941

SITUATION; AND ALSO ‘UMNO – ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS’, IN MALAY LEAGUE OF PERAK, HIDUP

MELAYU, P. 12 WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT THE MALAY CONGRESS ‘URGES H.M.’S

GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW THE AFORESAID PROPOSAL IMMEDIATELY AND RESTORE THE

STATUS QUO WITH NO CHANGE WHATEVER FOR THE PRESENT.’

[12] A.J STOCKWELL, BRITISH POLICY AND MALAY POLITICS, 1942-1948, P.166.

[13] THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST K.J. RATNAM PUTS IT NEATLY WHEN HE STATES THAT “TO SUM

UP, IT APPEARS THAT THE ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT LAY IN A SINGLE ISSUE; WERE THE BRITISH

GOING TO RECOGNIZE THE DE FACTO POSITION OF THE NON-MALAY COMMUNITIES WHO NOW

CLAIM TO REGARD MALAYA AS THEIR ONLY HOME AND HENCE CONSIDERED THEMSELVES

ELIGIBLE FOR WIDELY INCREASED POLITICAL RIGHTS, OR WERE THEY GOING TO CONTINUE

RECOGNIZING MALAYA AS ESSENTIALLY A MALAY COUNTRY????

[14] MANY MALAYS NOW IN THEIR 70S AND 80S WHO WERE EITHER INVOLVED IN THE ANTI-

MALAYAN UNION DISPUTE OR WHO WITNESSED WHAT TOOK PLACE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT

THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA AGREEMENT WAS A MODIFIED MALAYAN UNION WHEREBY THE

BRITISH ENDED UP WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF POWER AND THE MALAYS WERE LEFT WITH THE

ILLUSION OF IT.

[15] SEE CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS FOR MALAYA: REPORT OF THE WORKING COMMITTEE

APPOINTED BY A CONFERENCE OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF THE MALAYAN UNION,

THE HIGHNESSES THE RULERS OF THE MALAY STATES AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

UNITED MALAYS NATIONAL ORGANIZATION, KUALA LUMPUR: GOVERNMENT PRINTER, 1946,

P.23.

Farouq Omaro





29-12-2009|

29-12-2009|

29-12-2009|

29-12-2009|

The systematic persecution of the Communist Party of Malaya and Parti Kesatuan Melayu Malaya by the British colonialists has

ensured the death of Malayan unity. It is unfortunate that the disunity created is slowly being nurtured in Sabah and Sarawak!

Quote

cruz - Why Did it All Happen so suddenly - only after WW

While the author seems to sing praises about the might of "the Malay rebellion" against the Malayan Union, he fails to ask why it

happened all of a sudden - and not before?

The Brits could've held on if they wanted - after all they had no qualms about massacring thousands in India ...

The Brits had agreed to give independence to all its colonies "East of Suez" in exchange for American support in the war against Hitler's

Germany - and "Malayan Independence was "won" on the Beaches of Normandy", and not the table talks the Brits had with an elitist

Umno leadership - formed mainly by Brit-trained elite Malay bureaucrats!!

Did the Chinese and Indians who were brought for labour & industry fight for "citizenship" per se? If they did, don't quite recall much

of it. All I know is the fact that Tun H.S Lee was the first to go to London to negotiate "Independence", while Umno was still seeking a

political foothold.

What the writer fails to address is the fact that the Brits, reeling from the effects of the war, needed a pro-Brit leadership which could

take care of their vested economic interests - hence they wanted the Non-Malays to stay on.

The Malay elite shared the same interest, as only then could they make their bread & butter.

As a result - we got the pro-Brit Umno (which used the "Malayan Union" issue for mass support), which had no vision of an

independent nation-state. Meanwhile, the non-racist leftists who were true idealists, nationalists and anti-colonialists, who shed blood

were demonized and hounded out of the leadership by the Brits, with the cooperation of rats in Umno.

Quote

mak jun yeen - Malaysia

It took America 200 years for 1/2 "black" (but also partly white) President.It took Mexico just 60 years to have a 1/4 "black"

President.From inception, Malaya and Malaysia has had a part Siamese PM, Part Turkish PM, Part Indian PM, and Part Hailam/Part

Yemeni PM. We are already ahead of America by 150 years.

Quote

Lone - malaya + MALAYSIA

Well if not for the multi racial nature of newly independence malaya do the so called Malay elites think SABAH&SARAWAK which is

3 times the size of Malaya will have joined to form Malaysia.

Brunei which has simlar ethnic and religious root like the malay states has rejected the idea and what made this Sabah and Sarawak

which have largely non muslims to accept this muslim malays?Are their leaders weak and stupid?

The PM from UMNO should have taken advantage of the contribution of Sabah and Sarawak economically to push for ONE

MALAYSIA whithout empahasing on race and religion.Except for YB Tuanku Abdul Rahman(TAR) the others are ethnic centred The

one who hold on to power for 22 years HAS DONE even MORE DAMAGE as he is religious centred as well....

He knew very well it will work against malay intreast if the Bumiputras of Sabah and Sarawak are largely Christians.The islamzation policy started by using his Deputy.The plan is simple 1.converting many non muslims to mulims in Sabah.&Sarawak 2. The other plan

to give citizenship to muslim immigration from Philphine.Till today the federal goverment(umno) is not intreasted to solve the forigners

promblem in sabah.

What is even worse he created 121(1a)ammendment where there are 2 laws in this country one for non- muslim(civil) and one for

muslim(syariah)) Can this contribute for the unity of all Malaysians.MCA and mic are fools who are blinded by money.They only

realise later this has caused promblems like body snatching,minor conversation ...

Today we have to think beyond race and religion to survive economically.Our GDP performance is not impressive compare to

neighbouring countries.I WOULD SAY THE NON MALAYS IN MALAYA AND THE TOLEARENT LEADERSHIP OF TAR

THAT CREATED A BIG MALAYSIA FROM MALAYA.Those malays who thought they have made a big scarfice by accepting the

non malays as citizens have to ponder will Malaysia exist without the non malays in malaya.The non malays have also contributed

economically to make this country prosper.

Quote

jerry





28-12-2009|

28-12-2009|

Name:

Email:

Title:

UBBCode:

Message:

I just think it is high time for all malaysians to be under one banner of 1Malaysia;discarding the racial banner which has been and will

be very sensitive all thiss while for the past 46 years;just move forward,burn bridges and we will prosper just like the Americans;even a

black can be President;that is the day when we can call ourselves truly Malaysian!

Quote

Noraini Ruhaini

Those who insist on Malay rights are self-serving as they are the elites in the race and are the main beneficiaries of the policy. Their

political power and wealth is secured as long as they are seen as champions of the Malay race and totally disregard the good of the

nation. Never mind that Malaysia has been a laggard in economic growth because of this policy.

Quote

phat wah

to cut this long history short..the Malaysians gave the 3 PMs to try unite them. However as you can see it failed except for one..the rest

were ethnic centred. The worst one was the one with a 22 year record.He could have changed all that and put us on the road to what we

are thirsting for. But the 22 years made us even more different and polarised.

Quote

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Comment:

-color- -size-

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Send

Joomla components by Compojoom





Struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after WWII (Pt 2)

Written by Ariffin Omar

Tuesday, 29 December 2009 13:14

History

The Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 was just a political arrangement leading to the birth of a politicaentity. It did not create a nation state nor did it bring about unity amongst the various communities. In 1948, Malay special privileges were upheld; citizenship was mademore restrictive for the Chinese. Sovereignty was not inthe hands of the Malays while a Federal Council wasestablished and its members were nominated by theBritish.

At the same time that Malays saw Persekutuan TanahMelayu as a Malay country exclusive to them, the non-Malays believed it to be embracing al

the ethnic communities. These contradictory perceptions only testified to the deviousness othe British, in collusion with the Malay elite, who thwarted a viable alternative – the Peoples’ Constitution – that would have laid a solid foundation for inter-ethnic harmony.

Persekutuan Tanah Melayu bestowed citizenship but not nationality.

Such a tragic state of affairs did not go unchallenged. There were Malays and non-Malays who saw through the deviousness of the new

political agreement concocted by the British and the conservative Malay elite and they mounted an opposition to the Federation of Malaya

Agreement. Malays from Parti Kebangsaan Melayu led by Burhanuddin Al-Helmi and Ishak Haji Muhammad, Angkatan Pemuda Insaf led

by Ahmad Boestamam, and Angkatan Wanita Sedar banded together to form Pusat Tenaga Rakyat to oppose the Federation. The non-

Malays especially the Chinese had set up the All Malaya Council for Joint Action (AMCJA) led by Tan Cheng Lock. Together they

formed the Putera-AMCJA coalition comprising Malays and non-Malays.

These Malays and non-Malays felt that the time had come to work towards building a united nation whereby everyone would have a stake

in the country and they campaigned vigorously to put their views across. The aims and objectives of the Putera-AMCJA can best be

described as the first step in the history of this country to work towards a serious attempt to promote a truly all embracing national

consciousness that would embrace both Malays and non-Malays in the Malay peninsular.

The seriousness of its attempts can be seen in the alternative proposed by the Putera-AMCJA that the Federation of Malaya Agreement be

replaced by the The Peoples’ Constitutional Proposals. These advanced the idea of a single nationality for all citizens who had to forego

other nationalities and sever all other political connections and pledge total loyalty and allegiance to the new nation. 1 This Constitution

guarantees fundamental liberties and equality before the law.

The Putera-AMCA also suggested that Singapore must be included in the new nation-state to be established. What is remarkable about the

Putera-AMCJA sponsored Peoples’ Constitution was that the nationality proposed was to be termed ‘Melayu’. This was an attempt to

stress the nation’s links with its historical past.2 Even more significant was that the Melayu nationality that was being proposed did not

carry any religious connotations. What has not been noted by historians and political scientists is the significance of the compromises

arrived at in accepting Melayu as a nationality.

Definition of term ‘Melayu’

The non-Malays in the AMCJA accepted the arguments put forward by the Malays in Putera that:

“The term ‘Malayan’ to designate the national status was completely unacceptable to the Malays. They [the Malay

delegates] felt that that the term ‘Malayan’ had always been used in contradistinction to the word ‘Malay’ to denote the

non-indigenous inhabitants of the country, and that the Malays had therefore become accustomed to regarding themselves

as excluded from the category of ‘Malayans.’ The use of the term ‘Malayan’ to designate the common national status

would therefore involve abandonment by the Malays, as the indigenous people of the country, of their proper title, and the





acceptance by them of a title which, in its accepted sense, included many who do not regard Malaya as their real home

and as the object of their loyalty.??? 3

For the non-Malays to accept Melayu as a nationality was indeed a big concession because they were so used to seeing themselves as

Malayan and they expected the Malays to accept this and become Malayan too. The Malay delegates too made big concessions. In

proposing that Melayu be accepted as the nationality, they were aware that were swimming against the tide of mainstream Malay opinion

at that point in time. They were also aware that if this proposal was accepted, the term Melayu would embrace Chinese, Indians and others

who need not be Muslims or observe Malay customs or even speak Malay as their mother tongue.

Beyond any doubt, the compromises reached between the Malays and non-Malays were a watershed.

The Malay delegates also accepted the principle that there should be equal rights for all with no distinctions between indigenous and non-

indigenous citizens.4 The non-Malay delegates accepted that Malay would be the official language while the Malay delegates accepted that

other languages may also be used for those not yet proficient in Malay.

Sovereignty of the people

In short, we need to be aware that in the history of our

nation, there was an attempt to get the various ethnic

communities in Malaya to work together in building a

true nation state where all could have a common

purpose and aim as well as loyalty. Indeed the

superiority of the Peoples’ Constitution can be seen in

its demand that sovereignty should reside in the

people. The Peoples’ Constitution demanded a fully-

elected federal legislative assembly and its framers

argued that only a government elected by and

responsible to the people would be able to look into

the welfare of the people. In addition there would be a

Prime Minister elected by the assembly.

The Peoples’ Constitution also deemed it unnecessary

that the British High Commissioner should have any

veto powers. He would merely be a representative of

the British government and give his assent to bills passed by the elected assembly.

Even more significant is that the Peoples’ Constitution proposed that there should be a Council of Races consisting of two members each

from the Malay, Chinese, Indian, Eurasian, Ceylonese, Aborigine, Arab, European, Jewish and other communities. This council would vet

every bill passed by the Assembly to check whether it was discriminatory or not. If it were discriminatory, the particular bill would be

returned to the assembly.

The council would also have the function of recommending to the assembly any measure which it considers necessary for the advancement

or protection of any section of the people.5 Citizens would have the right to petition the council on matters within its mandated portfolio.

Each state would have an elected state assembly with full legislative and executive authority. There would also be an executive council in

each state headed by a Menteri Besar in the case of the Malay states and a parallel position for each of the states of Penang, Malacca andSingapore.

Thus we see that in comparison to the Federation of Malaya Agreement that was accepted by the British, the traditional rulers and the

Umno elite, the Peoples’ Constitution was indeed far ahead of its time and by right should have been supported as a viable Constitution

that would have laid a solid foundation for inter-ethnic harmony. Despite the good intentions of those Malay and non-Malay leaders of the

Putera-AMCJA coalition, their attempt to get the Peoples’ Constitution accepted was not successful.

At that point in time, ethnic animosities and mistrust were the dominant features of inter-ethnic relations. Malays were unwilling to trust

the non-Malays and the non-Malays were not confident that the Malays will be able to act fairly towards them. Malays and non-Malays

both saw the British as impartial administrators who be counted upon to act fairly in any inter-ethnic misunderstanding even though there

was ample evidence to show that this was simply not the case.

British protecting self-interest

The British in particular poured scorn on the Peoples’ Constitution.





W. H. Linehan, the noted academic and member of the executive committee established to examine constitutional reforms, condemned the

Peoples’ Constitution proposing Melayu as a nationality as bogus in nature. He cited Chen Thung Hua, a ‘representative’ of the Perak

People’s Association, who in response to the citizenship proposals of the Malayan Union voiced his opinion that the overseas Chinese

preferred dual citizenship.

Similarly, Linehan endorsed the Malay Nationalist Party’s view that “if a Malay by becoming a Malayan Union citizen should lose his

Malay nationality, the Party were opposed to the whole Malayan Union scheme.??? According to Linehan, such views suggest the futility

of having a nationality.6 Furthermore the British claimed that Malays would not acquiesce in non-Malays being termed Melayu as a

nationality and that non-Malays themselves would not agree to have themselves designated as Melayu.7

Continuing with his scathing remarks, Linehan stated that the citizenship proposals of the Putera-AMCJA Constitution – that provides that

any person born in Malaya automatically becomes a citizen and that any such person of the age of 18 or more could make a sworn

declaration before a magistrate either that he did not desire citizenship whereupon he would not be a citizen or that he desired citizenship

whereupon he become would a citizen – was farcical.8

According to Linehan, the citizenship proposals woul allow blackmailers, gang robbers, murderers and other criminals (who were mainly

non-Malays) to become citizens who could not therefore be deprived of their citizenship or suffer banishment. 9 There was not a single

reference to the proposals put forward in the Peoples’ Constitution that sovereignty should reside in the people through elected federal and

state assemblies.

The issue of fundamental liberties which are so important in a nation-state was ignored completely by the British in their criticism of the

Putera-AMCJA Constitution. These issues were ignored because the British could not oppose the demand for sovereignty of the people

and the observance of fundamental liberties. Thus silence was the best weapon to use against the Putera-AMCJA Constitution on these

issues. The Council of Races, which would have been vital in maintaining peace and harmony among the various ethnic groups in a

fledgling nation state was ridiculed by the British as something that would undermine the Malay position.10

It was clear that the British were rattled by the sophistication and logic of the Peoples’ Constitution of Putera-AMCJA and were hard

pressed to reply to it through an open intellectual debate. Thus the Peoples’ Constitution was not thoroughly discussed because the powers

that be that controlled the mass media and had political power at their disposal made sure that this radical Constitution would never be

explained rationally to the various communities in order to gauge whether it would be acceptable to all.

At the same time it must be realized that the British had just gone through the arduous process of negotiating with the traditional rulers and

the Malay elite within Umno and the parties concerned had accepted the Federation of Malaya Agreement as the replacement for theMalayan Union and it was unlikely that the British would open negotiations all over again with groups determined to undermine British

political supremacy that was guaranteed in the Federation of Malaya Agreement.

The AMCJA-Putera coalition was also under police surveillance and every attempt was made by the British to reduce its influence and to

weaken it. Several organizations classified as left-wing were proscribed and their leaders arrested and detained. Boestamam himself was

arrested and put on trial for sedition. The Angkatan Pemuda Insaf was proscribed by Gent.

Burhanuddin Al-Helmi and Ishak Haji Muhammad were also detained by the British. It was clear that the Putera-AMCJA attempt to forge

a working partnership would be opposed not just by the British but also by Umno which saw its attempt to make Melayu a nationality a

serious threat to a party which thrived on the politics of ethnicity.

Umno campaigned vigorously against the Constitution that was drafted by the Putera-AMCJA using the arguments that it would

undermine Malay interests. The idea of Melayu as nationality was a serious threat to Umno’s existence if it gained widespread supportamong the Malays. For Onn Jaafar who led Umno at that point in time, the only way to destroy that idea was to see it as a threat to the

Malays. Onn attacked the idea of Melayu as a nationality mercilessly. He was quoted as having said that

“one matter which has been brought up by them from the beginning has involved an attempt to destroy the name Melayu,

that is change the term Melayu and every custom of the Melayu… We have been renowned for hundreds of years as

Melayu. In the past, every person wanted to become Melayu (masuk Melayu), but now we are asked to enroll or be

enrolled as Melayu.??? 11

Malay elite wanted non-Malays excluded

It is clear that Onn wanted the term Melayu to beexclusive. It was totally unacceptable that this term

should be used to denote a nationality. To the Malay elite

who were leading Umno at that point in time, the





boundaries of the Malay community were impenetrable;

non-Malays were excluded in no uncertain terms. But the

door was open for the non-Malays to become Melayu

(masuk Melayu) but only on the established terms of

religious as well as cultural conversion.

For the non-Malays, acceptance on such terms was seen

as too high a price to pay to gain acceptance by the

Malay elite. Since attempts to promote Melayu as a

nationality was seen and presented as a threat to the

existence of the Malay community at a time when that

community felt itself under siege, this noble endeavour to

promote unity and integration in a fledgling nation-state was doomed to failure. While it is all too easy to apportion blame to certain

individuals for the failure in laying the foundations of a truly integrated nation state, it must be realized that many factors were way

beyond the control of these individuals and they themselves were victims of the situation which they could not alter.

Onn Jaafar himself realized the futility of a narrow-minded ethnic approach to nationalism and the obstacles it posed in demanding

Merdeka from the British who used the reasoning that unless there was unity among the various ethnic communities the prospect for

Merdeka was rather dim.

In 1951 Dato Onn made the brave proposal that Umno should be transformed into a Malayan nationalist movement and that it should be

known as the United Malayan National Organization and it should demand independence from the British. But his proposal was rejected

by Umno and tragically he himself was denounced as having committed derhaka (treason) to the bangsa Melayu.12

For Onn it was a bitter

irony because after having fought so hard to preserve the bangsa Melayu, he was now accused of having betrayed his own people and had

to leave Umno in disgrace.

His successor Tunku Abdul Rahman gauged the mood of the Malays well. In his speech after having been chosen to succeed Onn, he

argued that

“With regard to suggestions from some of our people that independence should be given to ‘Malayan’, the question is

who are these ‘Malayans’? This country was received from the Malays, therefore it should be given back to the

Malays.??? 13

According to the Tunku, Merdeka would be obtained for the bangsa Melayu. However, like Onn, he too would see the folly of such a

pronouncement when it became obvious that independence would be a pipe dream unless there was unity among the various ethnic groups.

Unlike Onn he was shrewd enough to enter into a bargain with the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and later on with the Malayan

Indian Congress (MIC) whereby the ethnic identities of the political parties would be maintained but they would cooperate together in

order to acquire a common objective i.e. Merdeka.

This Faustian bargain is still the basis on which mainstream political competition is carried out today. But as the pre-Independence

political history indicates, the struggle for an alternative politics remains very much alive.

Part 1 appeared yesterday.

Ariffin S.M. Omar is assoc. prof. in International Studies at UUM. He is a founding member and former president of Aliran. He has

published Bangsa Melayu: Malay Concepts of Democracy and Community 1945-50 (Oxford University Press, 1993) and edited a volume

on The Bumiputra Policy: Dynamics and Dilemmas (USM Press, 2005). His essay ‘The struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after the

Second World War’ is published in the book Multiethnic Malaysia — Past Present and Future (2009).

_____________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES:

[1] REFER TO PUSAT TENAGA RAKYAT, THE PEOPLES’ CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS FOR

MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR, TA CHONG PRESS, NOVEMBER 1947, PP. 46-47.

[2] IBID. PP. 11-18.





Add New SearchComments (2)

29-12-2009|

[3] IBID., P. 20

[4] THIS WAS A FAR CRY FROM THE UMNO VIEW THAT THE MALAYS NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED

AND NURTURED AS THEY COULD NOT STAND ON THEIR OWN TWO FEET AND FACE

COMPETITION FROM OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS. UMNO NEVER REALIZED THAT MALAY

BACKWARDNESS WAS NOT DUE TO ANY GENETIC OR INHERENT WEAKNESS WITHIN THEMALAY CHARACTERISTICS BUT CAME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THE RAPACIOUS BEHAVIOR OF

THE TRADITIONAL RULERS AS POINTED OUT BY MUNSHI ABDULLAH AND THE NEGATIVE

EFFECTS OF BRITISH COLONIAL RULE THAT DELIBERATELY NEGLECTED MALAY WELFARE.

[5] UNDOUBTEDLY, THIS COUNCIL OF RACES WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK INTO THE

PROBLEMS OF MALAY BACKWARDNESS AND RECOMMEND THE NECESSARY REMEDIAL

MEASURES THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO LIFT THE MALAY COMMUNITY FROM THE CLUTCHES

OF POVERTY THAT HAD AFFLICTED THEM AS A RESULT OF THEIR FEUDAL POLITICAL SYSTEM

AND THE NEGLECT OF BRITISH COLONIAL RULE.

[6] THE BRITISH EITHER FAILED TO REALIZE OR PRETENDED THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT

UNDER THEIR MALAYAN UNION SCHEME, A MALAYAN NATIONALITY WOULD BE IMPOSED

UPON MALAYS, CHINESE AND INDIANS.

[7] REFER TO SIR EDWARD GENT’S LETTER TO H.T. BOURDILLION DATED 4TH. OCTOBER, 1947.

ENCLOSED WITH THIS LETTER ARE NOTES WRITTEN BY LINEHAN CONCERNING THE PEOPLES’

CONSTITUTION OF PUTERA-AMCJA.

[8] LINEHAN CONVENIENTLY IGNORES THE FACT THAT MELAYU NATIONALITY EFFECTIVELY

ELIMINATES DUAL CITIZENSHIP.

[9] LINEHAN AND OTHER BRITISH OFFICIALS INCLUDING EDWARD GENT SHOULD HAVE

REALIZED THAT UNDER THE LIBERAL CITIZENSHIP PROPOSALS OF THE MALAYAN UNION,

THOSE SAME BLACKMAILERS, GANG ROBBERS, MURDERERS AND OTHER CRIMINALS WOULD

ALSO BECOME CITIZENS AND EVEN ASSUME MALAYAN NATIONALITY.

[10] REFER TO LINEHAN’S COMMENTS AS ENCLOSED BY GENT IN HIS LETTER TO H.T.

BOURDILLION DATED 4TH. OCTOBER 1947. LINEHAN MAKES THE CLAIM THAT THE MALAYS

WOULD BE OUTVOTED AND PLAYED OUT IN THE COUNCIL OF RACES WHOSE EXISTENCE IS WILL

BE LIMITED TO NINE YEARS AND AFTER WHICH THE MALAYS WOULD BE LEFT HIGH AND DRY.

[11] UTUSAN MELAYU, 4 SEPTEMBER 1947.

[12] SEE ONN’S SPEECH IN IBRAHIM MAHMOOD, SEJARAH PERJUANGAN BANGSA MELAYU,

KUALA LUMPUR: PUSTAKA ANTARA, 1951, P.304.

[13] IBID., P.314.

lone - THE MALAYSIAN RACE.

After the creation of Malaysia with the help of non malays projecting Malaya has multi racial, race and religion should not be

overemphasized.One bad policy is using religion on MYCAD.If the kadazans & dayak bumiputra can accept the non malays on equal

term why not the malays.Does the east malaysian bumiputras are inferior to malay bumiputras because they are largely Christians.If





29-12-2009|

malaysia were to survive economically and look after the intreast of the rakyat and the monarchy system than we should think every

citizen as equal irrespective of RELIGION and ethnic.Having two set of laws like the syariah law for the muslims and civil law for the

non- muslims is not going to unite the Malaysians.We should go back to the 1957 and 1963 agreement where only civil law is

supreme.Syariah law is only used for marriage,divorce and division of property among muslims.With the ammendment 121(1a)

everything has changed now.More non malays will sent their children to national schools and racial intergration can be achieved if the

goverment of the day can allow intermarriages without setting precondition that conversion is compulsory when non muslims are

concern.Just look at indonesia and singapore.They are extremist group in ever country and don't bow to their demands.

Quote

Steve Oh - Purge racist policies that divide the nation

Looking back at the past makes us wiser. But looking into the future is more crucial. And acting for the present and future is the critical

challenge.

Whatever took place in the past is largely irrelevant after the formation of Malaysia in 1963 which one would have thought defined the

new nation with new ground rules.

Nationhood regardless of academic definitions means all are equal under the same law. And what took place before becomes purely

academic.

That special privileges were accorded the Malays should not be misunderstood as creating the permanent schism between Malays and

non-Malays.

In some future age when the national conscience is mature it may have to re-visit some of these old grounds which were prepared under

different circumstances because they cannot sit comfortably with a conscience decided by our contemporary values and sense of justice.

Sadly religion failed to play a role in guiding the people to make equitable decisions. Today at least we hear of PAS talking about

equality and fairness and doing away with race-based policies such as the NEP, from a religious purview.

In building a nation everyone has to give and take and no one should feel he or she has more claims than the next person,because

nationhood levels the playing field for all, and grants them equal rights and opportunities, at least from a legal and constitutional

standpoint.

Building a nation is both a historic moment and process.

It is looking forward and not backward that makes a new nation promising.Why should a child be born today be made to feel less than a

citizen because of his or her race?

It is the failure of successive administrations to fully explain the concept of nationhood and establish fair and sound policies to achieve

those unifying goals as a nation that has resulted in the fragmentation and confusion.

While many blame the wasted 22 years the problem began before then and continues until today. It is the collective fault of the

politicians and the citizens who condone their flawed ideas.

The dilemma is plain to see because of the insidious duplicitious double agendas of the politicians who are happy to see a divided nation

despite the charade at national unity, so that they can pursue their own selfish ambitions.

Ultimately the Malays have got to see far ahead to realise that without the Chinese and Indian to power the economic engine, the

economy will stall.

In future when the population of the non-Malays have dwindled significantly it will be Malays battling Malays and unless you rid the

nation of the inherent unhealthy ideas and systemmic flaws, you will always have a retarded society.

And history has proof people of the same race can be cantankerous and belligerent toward one another,when material interests are

involved.

It is time to grow up.

But until there are Malaysians who do not succumb to their temporal desires and act corruptly and devote themselves to building their

nation for all, there is no hope of a bright future and 50 years down the road people will still be complaining about the same things.





Name:

Email:

Title:

UBBCode:

Message:

The writer has confirmed what every historian has noted, that selfish interests and prejudice dictated the ideas and actions of those

involved and until we see a radical change in the mindset toward a genuine concern for one another regardless of race or relgion among

the political leadership, it is futile to talk of Malaysia as a cohesive nation.

Unless the irregularities are removed and race-based policies and practices are purged from the administration, Malaysia will remain a

nation divided not only by its history but the situation today despite the hype of 1Malaysia.

Quote

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Comment:

-color- -size-

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Send

Joomla components by Compojoom


Documents

Struggle Ethnic Unity