Beza Cina 1948 dengan Melayu 1946

January 27, 2013 at 1:08 am 9 comments

1946: Malayan Union

Syarat kerakyatan adalah longgar

(a) Jus soli: Sesiapa sahaja yang lahir di Tanah Melayu dan Singapura adalah layak menjadi warga
.
(b) Mereka yang berumur 18 tahun dan ke atas serta bermastautin selama 10-15 tahun akan diberikan kerakyatan
.
(c) Mereka yang berumur kurang daripada 18 tahun yang merupakan anak warganegara di atas, turut diberikan kerakyatan
.
(d) Semua rakyat British daripada Tanah Jajahan takluknya boleh menjadi rakyat

Ciri utama Malayan Union ialah pentadbirannya yang diketuai seorang Gabenor (Sir Edward Gent) serta tertakluk terus kepada parlimen British di London.

‘UBAH': Di bawah Malayan Union, kuasa Sultan terhakis dengan ahli Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu hanya membincangkan soal agama Islam dan adat istiadat Melayu manakala seorang Pesuruhjaya Negeri dilantik oleh British sebagai ketua pentadbir di setiap negeri.

Seperti yang diketahui umum, Malayan Union ditolak orang Melayu secara besar-besaran.

Penentangan orang Melayu terhadap Malayan Union adalah secara aman melalui rencana dan surat protes di akhbar-akhbar serta rapat umum dan demo. Persatuan Melayu dihidupkan semula dan Kongres Melayu diwujudkan di bawah kepimpinan Onn Jaafar.

Raja-raja Melayu juga berkumpul di bandar di-Raja Kuala Kangsar di mana suatu perarakan raksasa diadakan.

1948: Persekutuan Tanah Melayu

Syarat kerakyatan adalah ketat

Layak melalui perjalanan undang-undang (by operation of law)

(a) Mana-mana rakyat raja-raja Melayu
.
(b) Mana-mana rakyat British (British subjects) yang diperanakkan di Negeri-Negeri Selat Pulau Pinang dan Melaka
.
(c) Mana-mana orang yang bertabiat bercakap Bahasa Melayu dan mengikut adat resam Melayu berpaut kepada syarat kelahiran
.
(d) Mana-mana orang yang lain ibu bapa kedua-duanya diperanakkan dalam mana-mana negeri Persekutuan dan pada masa diperanakkan itu telah atau akan tinggal tetap dalam negeri-negeri itu
.
(e) Mana-mana orang yang bapanya pada tarikh diperanakkan orang itu ia sedia menjadi rakyat Persekutuan

Layak melalui permohonan (through registration)

(a) la telah diperanakkan dan telah tinggal dalam mana-mana negeri-negeri dalam Persekutuan selama 8 daripada 12 tahun terdahulu daripada permintaannya
.
(b) Telah tinggal 15 tahun daripada 20 tahun awal daripada permmtaannya dengan syarat berperangai baik, mempunyai pengetahuan yang cukup tentang bahasa Melayu atau Inggeris, membuat pengakuan akan tinggal tetap dan mengangkat sumpah taat setia kepada Persekutuan

Ciri utama Persekutuan Tanah Melayu ialah ia diketuai oleh Pesuruhjaya Tinggi British yang menjaga kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu. Konsep raja berpelembagan diperkenalkan.

Mengikut pandangan sejarahwan, faktor-faktor terjadinya pembentukan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu bagi menggantikan Malayan Union adalah seperti berikut:

Perpaduan orang Melayu, gesaan Piagam Atlantik 1945 agar diusahakan ‘decolonialization’ (melepaskan tanah jajahan empayar Barat), sokongan bekas pegawai-pegawai British (Frank Swettenham, R.O. Winstedt, Cecil Clementi, George Maxwell) beserta pegawai-pegawai tinggi British yang sedia berkhidmat, Umno tidak menuntut kemerdekaan, dan sikap politik orang Melayu yang sederhana (antara 1946 dan 1948).

AMCJA-Putera

Pertubuhan yang menentang Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948 ialah Majlis Tindakan Bersama Seluruh Malaya atau All Malayan Council Joint Action (AMCJA) dan Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (Putera) telah dibentuk awal tahun 1947.

Mereka mengadakan pelbagai tindakan seperti ceramah politik, demonstrasi dan mogok termasuk Hartal pada 20 Okt 1947.

Sebab-sebab British menolak AMCJA (puak Cina) dan Putera (puak Melayu) ialah:

(a) British telah memeterai perjanjian dengan Umno dan Raja-Raja (nota: Pihak kepentingan Cina telah dikesampingkan dalam pertemuan serampang tiga mata tersebut di antara British, Raja-Raja dan Umno).

Pada pandangan British, sesetengah elemen dalam AMCJA-Putera berada di bawah pengaruh komunis. British menganggap PMFTU, MDU, MNP* (yang dipengaruhi komunis) tidak akan menghulurkan kerjasama meskipun mereka diberi konsesi.

(b) British berpendapat tuntutan AMCJA-Putera agar mereka (British) menidakkan persefahaman awal – yang sudah dicapai dengan Umno dan Raja-Raja selepas rundingan berbulan-bulan lamanya – sebagai satu tuntutan yang kurang rasional.

(c) AMCJA-Putera menitik-beratkan pengalihan kuasa memerintah kepada orang tempatan sementara Umno tidak mencabar kekuasaan British. AMCJA-Putera mengkehendaki ‘self-government’ manakala Umno hanya mahukan keadaan dikembalikan kepada status quo tahun 1941 melalui pemansuhan Malayan Union.

(d) Bagi kerajaan, perangai dan kaedah yang digunakan oleh AMCJA-Putera adalah menjengkelkan. Pembangkang nampak lebih berminat mencetuskan sentimen anti-British, memalukan kerajaan serta mencabar kekuasaan British daripada menjalin perhubungan agar akan dapat bekerjasama.

["Fourth, the government found the behavior and methods of the AMCJA-Putera repulsive. The opposition seemed to be more interested in stirring up anti-British sentiments, embarrassing the government and challenging its authority than in establishing a working relationship."]

(e) Kerajaan tidak mahu kelihatan lemah dalam menghadapi pembangkang, terutama sekali apabila dicabar oleh orang yang telah berkempen menentang pemerintahan British. Sekiranya British mengalah kepada AMCJA-Putera, pengunduran ini akan ditafsirkan sebagai pengakuan kalah. Tindakan tersebut juga mampu meningkatkan prestij pejuang-pejuang anti-penjajah serta menggalakkan semangat mahu memerdekakan Malaya untuk terus membara. Pada hemat British, para pendesak ini patut diberi pengajaran.

["Finally, the government did not want to appear weak in the face of opposition, especially when the challenge came from the people who were campaigning against British rule. To do so would have been an admission of defeat. The action could enhance the prestige of the anti-colonial forces and give further encouragement to the already smoldering sentiments for independence in Malaya. To the government, these agitators ought to be taught a lesson."] — sumber: ‘Merdeka! British Rule and the Struggle for Independence Malaya 1945-1957′ by Khong Kim Hoong, Publication: SIRD (2003), page 177

* Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions, Malayan Democratic Union, Malay Nationalist Party

About these ads

Entry filed under: DAPster. Tags: , , .

Hannah Yeoh berceramah di DUMC The Lim Father & Son who politicize tragic deaths and their hatchet men

9 Comments Add your own

  • 1. AYAH  |  January 27, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Bagaimana pula dengan mereka yang sehingga kini tidak “mempunyai pengetahuan yang cukup tentang bahasa Melayu dan Inggeris”? Haruskah mereka ini diberi kerakyatan sepertimana yang dituntut?.

    Jika kita mengikut keperluan bagi mereka yang memohon kerakyatan di Amerika Syarikat, pemohon haruslah mengetahui tentang, antara lain, bahasa Inggeris. Britain pun kini sedar bahawa kaum immigran yang tidak menguasai bahasa Inggeris sukar untuk menyesuaikan diri (integrate) dengan keadaan di negara tersebut; oleh yang demikian, wujud kelompok kelompok dalam masyarakat luas yang mengasingkan dirinya dari perkembangan semasa dan merupakan ‘alien’ dalam negeri mereka sendiri.

    Saya rasa ramai antara kita di Malaysia sedar tentang mereka yang hidup di sisi kita masih tidak tahu bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu bukan sahaja di kalangan orang orang tua tetapi juga dikalangan generasi muda. Ramai juga menyedari bahawa mereka yang memohon kerakyatan Malaysia haruslah mempunyai “pengetahuan yang cukup tenatn bahasa Melayu…”.

    Inilah pendapat saya setelah membincang hal ini dengan kawan kawan berbilang kaum. Ingin saya tanya Saudari Helen pendapat anda mengenai perkara ini.

    Thank you.

    Reply
    • 2. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2013 at 11:08 am

      Penyokong DAP tegar akan bermati-matian mengatakan bahawa orang Cina semua sudah cukup syarat dalam pertuturan bahasa kebangsaan,”will have no problem to buy nasi kandar” (sini) dan “how many chinese malaysian girls age above 18 you meet that ‘hardly can speak a word of Malay or English’? i don’t.” (sini).

      Mereka menafi ada orang Cina yang tidak tahu bertutur BM.

      Reply
  • 3. forrrestcat  |  January 27, 2013 at 12:22 pm

    I am reluctant to revisit the past this way, the decisions were made in good faith, Malaysia incorporated stateless people, gave them citizenship at time when US,Australia and Canada have anti Asian migration policies and I am proud we went this path and prove that multicultural societies can thrive, put Angela Merkel and David Cameron as PM of Malaysia, they will immediately call multiculturalism a failure and give up on the country, but our past leaders never gave up.

    Anyway, here is new video that parody the fragmented Pakatan,hahaha
    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=NzkdR79l224&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNzkdR79l224&gl=GB

    Reply
    • 4. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2013 at 1:13 pm

      FC,

      Almost everyone is familiar with George Santayana’s famous quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

      However he is also credited with saying, “A man’s memory may almost become the art of continually varying and misrepresenting his past, according to his interests in the present.”

      And another one, “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim”.

      If you agree that the Dapster’s perpetual hysteria is a feature of fanaticism, then I think it is important for the general public to be cognizant of history and its continuity.

      The forefathers of some of the Dapsters were unqualified. They would have failed to meet the various criteria. It was only through the en bloc citizenship grant – 822,567 individuals in the year 1958 alone – that they managed to become citizens. If they were to have gone through the 1948 process required, their application would have been rejected.

      Possessing second generation citizenship traced back to the late 1950s is not really a long time to claim “Malaysian First”, on account of duration or other parameters of ‘Firstness’. Especially, not when the culture of the land is Islam and these evangelistas are determined to “take Malaysia for Jesus” (cf the controversial Jaclyn Victor YouTube).

      Tunku let go Singapore and among the reasons was that her Chinese island population was too destablizing for Malaya.

      If you look at the video footage/photos of the Bersih 3.0 rally and Himpunan Hijau, you will see eerie echoes of 1969 behaviour. That’s because the Jerusubang generation are buta sejarah and have no inkling of the past.

      Reply
      • 5. shamshul anuar  |  January 27, 2013 at 9:28 pm

        Helen,

        Many thanks for being appreciative. Your attitude I must say is rare among Chinese community.

        You will be vilified for telling this kind of stories as it is considered unpleasant to be reminded that citizenship granted en bloc by the very race now accused as racist. Beside, your story will not go down well with extremists in DAP for it is tantamount to recognising that prior to 1957, this was not a “no man’s land” where everyone status was the same.

        Being aggresive bordering rudeness, these species in DAP if possible wants nothing to do with Malays aparts from malays who are ever willing to sell their souls to gain acceptance.

        They keep testing the limit. They disturb Islam by challenging the very core of Islamic teaching. They keep spinning stories slandering Tun Razak for May 13, 1969. But they purposely do not tell young generation what they did during infamous procession in Kg Baru triggering the racial clash.

        They turn any incident into racial problem. You name it. Kugan Teoh Beng Hock. they demanded people to be punished, forgetting that Kugan in his lifetime was a criminal. Yet they just issued a 2 sentences statement after insulting Malay leaders as ‘hitam metalik”.

        They cry that Chinese rights are undermined (by a Malay led govt). Yet they reject any overture by the govt for unity. They made noise with one Malay billionaire but choose to keep quiet on Chinese tycoons.

        In all sincerity I believe they are plain ungrateful. Which is the reason why I term them ‘yahudi’. They only think about themselves.

        Reply
        • 6. Helen Ang  |  January 27, 2013 at 9:33 pm

          Kugan was a car theft suspect. Since he had not been brought before the court for trial, he was innocent (until proven and found guilty).

          Reply
      • 7. Antihipokrit  |  January 27, 2013 at 11:34 pm

        Dan SJKC menambah lagi ‘KEFAHAMAN BM dan BI’.. Helen, bini saya cikgu SJKC, dan betapa guru Melayu di ALIENkan di SJKC adalah fakta.

        Reply
        • 8. shamshul anuar  |  January 28, 2013 at 9:42 am

          Hipokrit,

          yup. that is not surprising.

          Reply
  • 9. I.D.A.  |  January 29, 2013 at 11:53 am

    aiyah ciakap B.M pun susah ka? mana susah, senang saja maa… B.M, B.M – mana ada susah? haiya sikit punya hal, kasi jadi busat. twitted this as well.

    Reply

Dijemput memberi komen anda

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Facing death

Slim chance of life in dog pound

Pls click on image above to read

Asleep in Buddha’s arms

Animal lovers can complain to the Prime Minister's Office, Public Complaints Bureau. Bombard Putrajaya!

http://www.pcb.gov.my

My blog, my like

Helen Ang

Recent Posts

CLICK ON IMAGE TO READ

'The Malay getting restless now' in Sarah's blog

Bubur lambuk in Anisah Afifah's blog

'10 scandals that rocked the Vatican' in Alizul's blog

Pengunjung

  • 4,348,165 hits

Kalender

Archives

Feeds


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 326 other followers

%d bloggers like this: