Continues from ‘Silent anger among Malays is growing’
The headline refers to a passage penned by a reader of this blog ‘Ayah‘ who commented:
“In 1969, there was anger amongst the Malays; there was anger too in 2008. And the anger has been growing since then but it has been silent anger.”
The operative word is ‘silent’.
In fact, the readership of my blog too comprises a large silent majority who do not make any comment. They just read very quietly.
Before Independence, the Malays were subjects of the Raja-Raja Melayu. In the state that gave birth to Umno, for instance, the Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Johor was established in 1895 as a formal written constitution.
Earlier Perak had pioneered legislation on Muslim affairs with a series of Orders in Council beginning in 1880.
And earlier, the Ninety-Nine Laws of Perak and the Minangkabau Kanun (digest of code of laws) were recorded in the 18th century, the Kedah Kanun in the 17th century, and the Pahang Kanun in the 16th century.
The Undang-Undang Melaka was a code of laws compiled in the 15th century, from 1422 to 1458 CE. There is also the Malay customary law (undang-undang adat). The Malay rulers have always had the royal prerogative.
R.H. Hickling in his book Malaysian Law wrote:
“What is important to note, perhaps, is that there were kingdoms and sultanates long before the common law arrived in the Straits Settlements between 1786 [Francis Light in Penang] and 1824 [Pangkor Treaty], and that Malaysia possessed its own legal systems long before any Westerner appeared on the scene.”
The peninsula did not practise Undang-Undang Cina and nor did it have Raja-Raja Cina as its rulers. There were the sovereign Malay states and the Melayu were the rakyat of these states.
As regular commenter Shamshul Anuar likes to remind our forum, the Malay rulers through the strokes of their nine pens in 1957 did indeed make citizens en masse of many Chinese who might otherwise not have qualified.
Today, however, there is nary a DAP supporter willing to give Umno its due credit for persuading the Sultans to do so.
Umno was founded by this country’s foremost statesman — Datuk Onn Jaafar.
What kind of a man was he? In 1945, Onn Jaafar was the District Officer of Batu Pahat.
On 16 Aug 1945, the Japanese army surrendered. During the interregnum before the British returned in September to restore law and order, there was anarchy when the Bintang Tiga went on a rampage carrying out reprisals.
Salleh Karim, the ‘Panglima Salleh Selempang Merah’ and his band of followers armed with parang panjang engaged in a gruesome battle with the Chinese communists in Johor.
Kiai Salleh would have massacred the remaining members of the Bintang Tiga in Batu Pahat had not Onn Jaafar, a respected orang bangsawan, stepped in to stop the bloodletting. Two years later, Onn became the Menteri Besar of Johor (1947-1950).
This great man was also the founder of Umno.
Whatever gave anyone the idea that Sino-Malay relations in Malaya were ever hunky-dory (just like a Yasmin Ahmad Petronas ad)?
The Firsters insist that acrimony between the races only started with Dr Mahathir’s premiership (the favourite bogeyman of the Bangsar Malaysians). Do you believe them?
An editorial in The Times (of London) on 2 July 1957 said:
“… one need only look at the Constitution [of Malaya] and the latest amendments incorporated to be reminded how great is the divide between the Malays and the Chinese.”
The Times editorial was penned when the Federal Constitution of Malaya was printed following the submission of the Reid Commission report in February 1957.
The Federation of Malaya Agreement was signed by Queen Elizabeth II with the Raja-Raja Melayu on 5 August 1957.
So what kind of people are they who aspire to be the “first class citizens” of Malaysia?
If you’re a First Class honours graduate, you will be required to meet certain standards of scholarship. If you want to be a First Class citizen, one should think that you’d be required to show certain standards of citizenship too, don’t you think?
On the eve of polling day in March 2008, Lim Guan Eng addressed a Chinese crowd, numbering in the tens of thousands, assembled in a private Chinese secondary school field in Penang. He thundered:
“Is it possible for us to become first class citizens in Malaysia? For 50 years, over a period of 50 years we have been second class citizens, third class citizens, fourth class citizens, aaah. Enough is enough, true or not? So we need to tell Abdullah Badawi, to say to Ong Ka Ting, say to Koh Tsu Koon so that they will know … we want to be first class!”
Fifty years of citizenship is not all that long. It is just one lifetime.
Among the reasons (I’m not saying it’s the primary one) that the Merdeka citizenship deal got through despite strong resistance was the warm personal chemistry between MCA founder Tan Cheng Lock and Umno’s Tunku Abdul Rahman. The two founding fathers are popularly depicted as enjoying a “close friendship”.
Most races are wary of ‘outsiders’ and have their guard up. Tunku may have let his guard down thinking that the Chinese are in the main like his close friend Tan Cheng Lock.
If the Tunku had thought so, then he was mistaken. Tan Cheng Lock was a Malaccan Baba from a line of Chinese who have assimilated.
Are today’s Chinese anything like Tan Cheng Lock or his son Tan Siew Sin? Or are they more like Lim Kit Siang and his son Guan Eng?
Not too long ago on 19 Jan 2013, Dr Mahathir Mohamad mooted an idea of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the one million Merdeka citizenships granted to non-Malays.
Since I’m not a mind-reader, I’m unable to detail why the ex-premier tossed his RCI proposal. However, two days prior to Dr M’s mischief, Bloghouse president Syed Akbar Ali had blogged (on Jan 17):
“Allow me to irritate our other immigrant citizenry : would it be too out of place to suggest that we have a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate why 1.0 million immigrants (mostly Chinese and Indians) were given citizenship in Malaya in the 1950s?
“I mean surely there must be at least five million Malays on the Peninsula today who may be wondering why or how that particular incident happened? Were they consulted? Was there a public referendum?”
I suspect Dr M likes to read Syed Akbar.
Among the reasons (I’m not saying it’s the only or the chief reason) there was a Malay ‘uprising’ against the Malayan Union was the perception at that time that regarded the Chinese as alien.
In essence, protests were mounted by the Malays against the British attempt to makeover Malaya, which included absorbing the Chinese. The Malayan Union 1946 mass demos reflected Malay objection to Chinese being made citizens.
The Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948 (note the acknowledgment of the nature of “Tanah Melayu” in the agreement name) rolled back the relatively easier passageway to citizenship offered by the terms set two years earlier.
Conrad’s comment originally at ‘Silent anger among Malays is growing‘
Should cautioning the non-Malays that the majority population are silently growing angrier by the day be seen as a form of threat?
Personally, I do not feel that Ayah’s commentary was threatening in tone. What he remarked is what the highest echelon BN leaders have already been saying sporadically throughout the last few years.
Sticking with the vocabulary utilized in this blog’s previous posting, let’s revisit whether the Dapsters “have cause to suffer”:
- “if DAP and their arrogant, abusive supporters continue the way they have been behaving of late, may God help us all!”, and
- should they “continue with their emotional and mad response to anything that resembles a challenge to their sensitivities (or superiority vis-a-vis the stupid, low class, no class multitude)”.
Aside from the aggression and arrogance, there is another symptom of the superiority complex syndrome which will light the fuse.
The DAP like to complain that Malaysian politics is unable to transcend Race, Religion and the Rulers (3Rs).
Dapsters are the loudest in constantly whingeing, whingeing and whingeing that they’re “Beyond Race” and that “your God is my God”.
Article 3 of the Federal Constitution did not prescribe Islam for the federation. What the article did was describe the facts on the ground. Did you know that first Mufti of Johor was Datuk Syed Salim bin Ahmad al-Attas who held office from 1895 to 1899, and that his Pejabat Mufti was legally constituted?
Against this long history of Islam in the land, you get today the evangelistas who are not only buta sejarah but defiant of the reality in a Muslim country. These are people who are quite incapable of heeding Tun Daim Zainuddin’s quiet warning (see poster above).
The Malay anger is indeed deceptively silent. The Dapster noise is very, very loud. As I’ve mentioned, think: What kind of people are they…? It should clue us to their next courses of action.