Posted in Gunting Dalam Lipatan

My reply to MCA’s criticism of Tun Hamid

William Roff was emeritus professor of Islamic and Southeast Asian history at Columbia University, in New York.

Roff ‘s famous book is The Origins of Malay Nationalism.

His widow Sue Roff believes that “much of what he identified 50 years ago is apparent in the results” of Malaysia’s 2013 general election.

MELAYU BANGKIT

Roff Malay Nationalism

The eminent historian understood kenapa Melayu telah bangkit menentang Malayan Union ketika itu. We are now looking at an ulang tayang – kali ini, ianya umat Islam yang bangkit.

Malays who opposed the Malayan Union in 1946 were against the idea of giving relaxed access to citizenship for the non-Malays, particularly the Chinese.

BELOW: According to some DAP fanboys, the early Chinese immigrants wore tudung too, and hence this head covering is not something exclusive to be claimed solely by Malay women on religious grounds

rubber tapper

Sojourners

.
Roff writes: “The manifestly transient nature of the majority of Chinese and Indians, the principal non-Malay groups, tended to obscure the steady growth among them of settled and stable communities”.

The word “transient” means impermanent or not permanent. The dictionary defines it as a noun to refer to “a person who is staying or working in a place for a short time only”.

Transient or not, by the end of 1930, Chinese made up 29 percent of persons residing in the peninsula. And this figure refers merely to those enumerated by the 1931 census. There were other impermanent Chinese workers who were uncounted.

BELOW: Mammoth demos where protestors carried placards “Down with Malayan Union” and “Hidup Melayu”

Malays reject the Malayan Union

Migratory birds of passage

The Chinese labour force “come and go” ... or rather, came and went. Between 1911 and 1921, a total of 1-and-½ million Chinese arrived to work in Malaya and over the same period, almost a million left to return to China.

Until 1957 forced the choice on them, many Chinese had considered themselves sojourners whose stay was temporary. They always wanted to return to their families in the village in China.

The Chinese repatriated money ‘home’ – much like the foreign workers we have in our midst currently who send money back to their wives and parents in Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar.

BELOW: The Sun Yat Sen memorial centre in Macalister Road, Penang

sun-yat-sen-memorial-centre-1

Split loyalties but China First

Sino-centrism clearly informed the outlook and policies adopted by the Chinese community in Malaya.

According to Asst Prof. Heng Pek Koon, they had a cultural and political orientation that was “strongly China-centric”.

In her paper on Chinese response to Malay hegemony, Dr Heng wrote that although the Chinese wanted to be political equals of the Malays, they also wanted dual citizenship.

And despite that holding such a citizenship as they demanded would have obligated the Chinese to be loyal to both Malaya and China, the communist party – when Malayan Union proposal was being debated – still stuck to a decision that “ultimate allegiance should be owed to China in the event of conflict between the two countries”.

The Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) were Bintang Tiga communist guerrillas who saw their resistance to the Japanese occupation of Malaya as linked to the war of resistance ongoing in motherland China.

Penduduk1947

1946-1955: Chinese here considered China their country

The Kwong Wah Jit Poh broadsheet was established in 1910 by Dr Sun Yat Sen, first president of the Republic of China. The daily is the oldest Chinese newspaper in the country. Based in Penang, it was at one time coupled with The J-Star.

Researching the identity consciousness of Chinese in Malaya, Fujio Hara – in his paper for the Institute of Developing Economies, Tokyowrote:

“For the first ten years following the end of World War II, the Chinese-language newspapers published in Malaya referred to China as their “homeland” and gave events in China equal, if not more, importance than local Malayan affairs. This fact will be immediately apparent to anyone who opens up any such newspaper published at the time and peruses the headlines.”

.
The China Democratic League (CDL) was a China political party that had branches catering to the Chinese diaspora, including those living in Malaya.

Nan Chiau Jit Pau – a CDL party organ first published in November 1946 and read by Chinese in Malaya – boasted a circulation of 22,000 (a circulation figure not far behind that of the New Straits Times currently).

BELOW: Diorama of Dr Sun holding his Penang Conference at 120, Armenian Street

dioramas-of-penang-sun-yat-sen-centre

Celebrating Oct 10, China’s National Day

In 1948, Malaya’s Kuomintang chapter counted a membership of 45,000 Chinese. The number of Kuomintang members in our country back then was roughly the same as the PKR membership that took four months to vote their party office bearers recently.

Chinese in Malaya commemorated the birth and death of Kuomintang founder Sun Yat Sen.

From the end of the World War Two until the British clamped down on such activities, the Chinese in Malaya celebrated the Oct 10 anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of China, i.e. China’s National Day.

At these gala celebrations, portraits of Dr Sun, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong were hoisted. The flag of China was also flown.

BELOW: China national flag has five stars; the J-Star logo has five stars too

flagChina

Bintang Lima

“A transient labour force”

All these China-hearted Chinese settled in the urban areas of the Malay peninsula. They were shopkeepers, traders and clerical workers, i.e. a class of people who had accumulated a little capital. Thus the Chinese immigrants, through their wealth acquisition, staked their holdings here.

Yet according to the late emeritus professor Roff, “the British persisted in looking officially upon the Chinese as exclusively a transient labour force” – p.110, see page scan below.

Click to enlarge

Roff Origins Malay Nationalism

Nonetheless following the Malay uprising in 1946, the Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, inked in 1948 after the successful dissolution of the Malayan Union, tightened the citizenship requirements for non-Malays. On the other hand, Malays were considered natural subjects of the Raja-Raja Melayu.

Do note that it was only in 1963 that this country ceased being officially called Tanah Melayu.

BELOW: Watikah pemasyhuran kemerdekaan

WatikahKemerdekaan

Chinese struggled for Merdeka, really?

Two days ago, the MCA issued a press statement titled ‘Ex-CJ must stop offending the joint sacrifices of multiracial Malayans in the struggle for Merdeka’.

Prior to 1952*, not many Chinese were citizens of this country. They were NOT anak watan yang tertakluk kepada Raja-Raja Melayu. Many of them were China-centric and oriented to the homeland. The Peranakan Chinese lived in the British crown colonies.

Straits Chinese living in Penang and Malacca considered themselves British subjects. In fact, there was a movement of Penangites, including resident whites, who objected to Penang’s 1957 entry into the Federation. They had wanted secession, preferring instead to give their loyalty to the Queen of England, like in Hong Kong.

Why does MCA assert that these Chinese, who were never rakyat Tanah Melayu, had struggled to free the land from the British?

BELOW: The only BN Chinese supporters left today are those MCA old folks who signed up with the party during Tan Cheng Lock’s era

MJX_0756

MCA feels insulted, offended and deeply aggrieved

Party sec-gen Ong Ka Chuan stated on Sept 8:

“MCA is deeply aggrieved that retired Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid has uttered statements which hold zero basis by refusing to recognise historical facts that the struggle for Merdeka was a joint effort by all communities with a common vision of sovereignty and freedom from British colonial rule.”

Actually Tun Hamid gave a fair representation of the historical premise.

Ong complained that “Tun Hamid’s utterances are a complete insult against the contributions of MCA, in particular, our party’s founding father Tun Tan Cheng Lock”.

The MCA founding father Sir Tan Cheng Lock was a Malacca Baba who could not read hanzi (Chinese script). He was knighted by the British. Tan is totally unlike the majority of the Chinese in Malaysia today.

Who does MCA represent nowadays, pray tell?

BELOW: The MCA symbol is modelled after the Kuomintang logo

mcaLOGO

kuomintang

Malays diluted own voting power by allowing Merdeka citizenships

MCA’s Ong wrote that the “Alliance lead by Tunku Abdul Rahman, supported by Umno, MCA and MIC swept to a landslide victory in the first ever general election on 17th July 1955, by winning 51 out of 52 seats in the Federal Legislative Council”.

May I remind Ong that the ethnic breakdown of those registered to vote in 1955 were:

  • 84.2 percent: 1,078,000 Malays
  • 11.2 percent: 143,000 Chinese
  • 3.9 percent: 50,000 Indians
  • 0.7 percent: 9,000 Others

The electorate in 1955 comprised only 11 percent Chinese.

It was the 84 percent Malay voters mainly who delivered the seats to the Alliance, and it was those Umno Malays who voted across ethnic lines that gave MCA the party’s seats in 1955. Same as in the 2008 and 2013 general elections, for which The J-Star thinks that Malay BN traditional voters are stupidly kampung-minded for refusing to usher a Change (“Ubah”) in Putrajaya.

In 1955, when 84.2 percent of the voters were Malay, the Alliance obtained 79.6 percent of the popular vote.

In 1959, when the percentage of Malay voters dropped to 57.1 percent (due to the Chinese voters conversely increasing by 24.4 percent), the popular vote obtained by the Alliance dropped too – drastically to 51.7 percent.

BELOW: DAP was Selangor’s biggest winner in the 10 May 1969 election, sweeping half of the DUN’s 28 seats; MCA won a measly one state seat in Selangor

May10Scoreboard

Setiakawan tapi ditikam belakang

The MCA sec-gen contended in his press statement: “The [1955 Alliance] victory might not have been able to come about easily without the support of the multi-racial voters”.

In 1955, eight-and-a-half out of every 10 registered voter was Malay.

From a voting strength of 84.2 percent, the Malays saw their influence reduced to 57.1 percent during the following next general election in 1959. The reduction of the Malay’s voting power corresponded with a reduction in the Alliance’s vote share.

Alliance popular vote

  • 1955  –  79.6%
  • 1959  –  51.7%

Why? Why the difference between 1955 and 1959, and the reason for the Alliance’s shockingly dismal performance two years after Merdeka?

The answer is … because of the huge increase in the number of Chinese voters who mostly voted for the opposition!

BELOW: One million Merdeka citizenships granted

MalayaCitizens

The Chinese in 1959, enfranchised through the Merdeka citizenships, saw a marked rise in their electoral presence to 35.6 percent (764,000 voters) from 11.2 percent voters earlier in 1955.

When given voting rights as citizens, the Chinese immediately dealt a severe blow to the Alliance.

BELOW: Chinese in Malaya greeting the communist guerrillas (from the jungle) into town with the message “The People’s Autonomous Council Welcomes the MPAJA. Whole Heaven is Rejoicing” – the Chinese characters on the triumphal arch read

mpajaTanjongMalim

Communists were not fighting to return sovereignty to Raja Melayu

MCA sec-gen Ong Ka Chuan claimed that “in the World War II, during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya, the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities sacrificed their lives to defend Malaya against the invading forces”.

Regimen Pertama MPAJA berarak di Chenderiang, Perak sejurus selepas Jepun menyerah kalah Chin Peng’s Bintang Tiga fought the Japanese occupiers because motherland China was at war with Japan. And because the Japanese soldiers victimized the Chinese civilians here.

MCA’s Ong has conveniently neglected to mention that the Chinese communists would not have wanted to return Malaya to a rule by the Raja-Raja Melayu if they had succeeded in their insurgency.

After the defeated Japanese left Tanah Melayu in 1945, the communists still nonetheless refused to lay down their arms but continued to wage war against the Alliance government and our YDP Agong.

ABOVE: Chinese in Chenderiang, Perak welcoming the Bintang Tiga First Regiment marching into town shortly after the surrender of the Japanese

AhJibGorInspiration

Do you trust MCA anymore?

British historian Arnold J. Toynbee made a thought-provoking quote:

“A truly significant mark that the British Empire can leave in Malaya when she withdraws is the transformation’ of this country into the nineteenth province of China.”

Dato’ Onn Jaafar thought that the Chinese – through using MCA as their instrument – wanted to make Malaya the 20th province of China. Unlike Toynbee, Dato’ Onn counted Taiwan as already the 19th province.

ABOVE: Students from the MCA-owned Utar wave Ah Jib Gor banners but shortly before GE13 on 12 April 2013, a lecturer from the university, Chong Zhemin, represented DAP in a public debate with independent operator Shen Yee Aun who represented MCA.

I repeat, a Utar lecturer represented DAP in a pre-election debate vs MCA.

Click 2x to enlarge

Wanita MCA vice-chairman Datuk Lim Bee Kau succumbs to cancer

ABOVE: Readers of the MCA-owned paper were “Happy” (20%), “Inspired” (20%) and “Amused” (20%) to hear the news that Wanita MCA vice chairman Lim Bee Kau had died of cancer.

Three out of every five J-Star readers who gave their feedback to the article (at the time the screenshot above was taken) were Happy-Inspired-Amused at the unfortunate passing of an MCA leader.

Do the Chinese hate – really hate – the MCA or what?

(a) Chinese non-officers in the army are 0.2 percent

ATMaskar2010

MCA says former Chief Justice “spewing nonsense”

MCA’s Ong had rounded on Tun Hamid, urging him to

“please desist from blemishing his record in the judiciary, and be a respected public figure by encouraging national unity in line with the 1 Malaysia spirit rather than spewing nonsense to polarise communities and the contributions of every Malayan / Malaysian living and departed towards the defence, Independence and development of Malaya / Malaysia”.

(b) Chinese officers in the army are 1.4 percent

ATM2010

Ong insists that Tun Hamid’s statements are nonsense. On the contrary, Tun Hamid’s statements have a historical basis.

Are the Chinese by and large today involved in the defence of Malaysia as the MCA claims? Look at how many Chinese are in the army (Angkatan Tentera Darat) – pie charts (a) non-officers and (b) officers, above.

Look at how many Chinese are serving in the police force – pie chart below.

Some Chinese even refuse to stand when our national anthem is played.

MCA was indeed pivotal in acquiring citizenship for the Chinese. However, the truth of the matter is, Malaya would have gotten Independence regardless – with or without the participation of the MCA.

graphPolis

Atlantic Charter’s principle of decolonization

At the height of World War Two, Great Britain and the United States issued a joint declaration in August 1941 known as the Atlantic Charter.

One of the principles upheld by the charter is that peoples affected by the war should – after the threat of the Axis forces has been contained or eliminated –  have the right to self-determination and to choose their own form of government.

In other words, the Atlantic Charter had already set forth the blueprint for the decolonialization process.

Britain would have been compelled by the post-war circumstances to dismantle her empire overseas and let go her colonies eventually. It did not require the MCA’s role for Tanah Melayu to achieve our independence.

MCA- Former CJ spewing nonsense - Free Malaysia Today 2014-09-10 14-03-16
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/09/08/mca-former-cj-spewing-nonsense/

China would not have wanted the Christians back

One must not forget that the Malayan treaties were all signed between His/Her British Majesty’s government and the Raja-Raja Melayu. The Chinese had no locus standi.

Furthermore, the Malay states were legally constituted and sovereign, with each having their own Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri. They owed nothing to the Chinese who were not party to, and whose signatures did not appear, on the various legal documents.

Rather than accommodating the Chinese masses, Malaya could have chosen to take the Brunei route.

BELOW: Chinese Christians in Federated Malay States were not recognised as China nationals by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs Enactments of 1899

FMSChineseAffairsEnactment1899

xFMSChineseAffairsEnactment1899

Chinese – stateless in Brunei

Brunei, a former British protectorate, got her independence from Britain in 1984.

When Brunei dimerdekakan, only some 9,000 ethnic Chinese were granted Brunei citizenship. The status of about 20,000 other Chinese (some of whom were previously British passport holders) remained as “stateless” persons.

To put it another way, for every Chinese granted Brunei citizenship, two others were denied. They failed to pass the nationality test, flunking the national language exam.

Unlike in Malaya, Brunei did not give away automatic citizenship to the Chinese nor did she make it so easy to be awarded citizenship. See ‘Stateless residents fight for sense of belonging in Brunei‘ (China Daily, 19 Dec 2013).

Even today, the Chinese there are only Permanent Residents and not full-fledged citizens despite being born and raised in the Sultanate, simply because Brunei rejects jus soli.

BELOW: Hannah Yeoh’s tweet to J-Star CEO Wong Chun Wai about the “racist parties” pointless to educate

Twitter hannahyeoh @hwabeng @chunwai09 TQ Dato

Umno failed to live up to its reputation

Umno – whom the Yahudi Yeohs call a “racist party” – could have opted for the jus sanguinis (right by blood) approach when advising the Raja-Raja Melayu on the citizenship issue.

Might as well the “racist party” just behave as ‘racist’ly as how the “fourth class citizens” Chinese perceive it to be. After all, Umno is daily assailed as Nazis who perpetuate apartheid.

Two days ago, the MCA sec-gen accused the former CJ of “spewing nonsense to polarise communities”. If Ong Ka Chuan is referring to the Chinese and the Malays, well, these two communities have been divided since 100 years ago. Why blame Tun Hamid for this situation or for revisiting history?

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.”

BELOW: Azmi Sharom’s J-Star article headlined ‘Thugs allowed to set agenda’

Azmi Shahrom Thugs

“Hate-spewing, divisive, race-obsessed ignoramuses” you all

The London Times editorial above was penned when the Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu was printed following the submission of the Reid Commission report in February 1957.

But it is really the editorials of the MCA-owned newspaper that is “spewing nonsense”.

PersekutuanTanahMelayu1957A prime example is the dedicated series on Hate Politics, Bullies, Racists, Extremists, Bigots, May 13 Fear-mongers, Paranoid Muslims, etc, etc by J-Star CEO Wong Chun Wai:

Wong Chun Wai and his J-Star have been thumping their chests and strutting around like they are paragons of “moderation” while at the same time ranting at all the rest of Malaysia who are non-evangelistas.

Those not enamoured of Wong and his ilk are called “hate-spewing, divisive, race-obsessed ignoramuses” by the screaming J-Star editorials.

But do you know WHY Wong Chun Wai can get away with pointing his finger at those whom he calls “right wingers” and Umno hawks?

Do you know why The EvangeliSTAR can get away with positing itself as the “moderates” benchmarking ‘Moderation’?

Do you know why their patron the MCA can slam Tun Hamid and disregarding the three fingers pointing back at themselves?

I’ll give you a pictorial clue

MCA president Liow Tiong Lai whispers in Najib's ear

And oh by the way, how much is the Prime Minister’s office contributing to the J-Star ‘Voices of Moderation’ campaign?

(3,050 words)

* Malayan Citizenship was liberalized in 1951 and took effect in 1952.

Author:

I have no Faceook or Twitter.

178 thoughts on “My reply to MCA’s criticism of Tun Hamid

  1. What is MCA nowadays? Menang election pun dgn ikhsan undi orang Melayu. Come PRU 14, MCA will be dead.

    Rasis kah orang MELAYU? History cannot be rewritten.

    MERDEKA is for the Malays to get independence of TANAH MELAYU, Bukan TANAH China.

    The main actors were of course the Malays, and the others were only PELAKON TAMBAHAN…… And only the main actors win Academy Awards.

    So why the fuss…. simple isn’t it!

    1. Jacko

      How could I didn’t agreed with you but the part ‘PELAKON TAMBAHAN’ was not actually true either. They are just bystanders, tengok mana satu bolih untong maa aa!

  2. re:”Malays who opposed the Malayan Union in 1946 were against the idea of giving relaxed access to citizenship for the non-Malays, particularly the Chinese.”

    ◆ so why the heck is the Tunku still agree on giving free citizenship? Why is umno in such a hurry to get Independance?

    1. Xynalhamzah,

      “..Why the heck….”

      Raja raja Melayu and Tunku definitely could not foresee how Chinese would later behave. THAT IS THE REASON. Had the Highnesses can imagine how Chinese would complain and complain in addition to painting Malays as racist, they would not have agreed to accept the Chinese.

      Problem with Malay politicians is that they tend to overestimate the importance of Chinese voters. As if UMNO will “bungkus” without Chinese votes. Until today Najib still unable to grasp that the Chinese has abandoned BN (meaning Malay-dominated government) for good.

      1. “Problem with Malay politicians is that they tend to overestimate the importance of Chinese voters.”

        Naahh,.. they just love (& need) their deep pockets.

  3. ‘kali ini, ianya umat Islam yang bangkit.’

    Indeed.

    ‘Melayu di generasi lama mungkin mudah lupa. Tetapi Melayu di dalam generasi Melayu Bangkit! tidak sama sekali akan pernah terlupa. Malah kami dari generasi Melayu Bangkit! Juga hanya akan memaafkan setelah sesuatu kesalahan itu mendapat hukuman yang setimpal.’

    http://www.bangkit.info/2014/09/mansuh-akta-hasutan-perbincangan.html

    ‘The Chinese repatriated money ‘home’ – much like the foreign workers we have in our midst currently who send money back to their wives and parents in Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar.’

    Thus the keturunan pendatang chants was factual nonetheless, no?

    ‘Dr Heng wrote that although the Chinese wanted to be political equals of the Malays, they also wanted dual citizenship.’

    Kiasu-ness starts early. Apa lagi Cina mahu?

    ‘…the Chinese-language newspapers published in Malaya referred to China as their “homeland”’

    Ahhh, motherland China. Thus the mother-tongue phenomenon pushed by the anti-152-Zongs in this country!

    ‘the Chinese in Malaya celebrated the Oct 10 anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of China, i.e. China’s National Day.’

    Patutlah itu hari diambang Merdeka, aku tengok budak-budak Melayu sama India saja bawa bendera kat Chulia Street. Depa lain, sambut 10 Oktober lagi ka Helen?

    ‘Do note that it was only in 1963 that this country ceased being officially called Tanah Melayu.’

    Betul tu Helen, dekat Lebuh Ampang, ada satu bangunan, sekarang bangunan sebuah bank, yang telah dirasmikan oleh al-Marhum YTM Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, pada 6hb November 1962 dan dinukilkan di situ, Tunku sebagai Perdana Menteri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

    ‘Why does MCA assert that these Chinese, who were never rakyat Tanah Melayu, had struggled to free the land from the British?’

    Indeed. Why MCA? Why? Apparently Cina MCA, sama macam Cina DAP mudah lupa!

    ‘Ong complained that “Tun Hamid’s utterances are a complete insult against the contributions of MCA, in particular, our party’s founding father Tun Tan Cheng Lock”.’

    Ala, Ong, itu TCL pun kalau British tak reprimand suruh join Alliance, pasti tak masuk punya. TCL kalau boleh forever nak jadi British subjects. Dalam masa yang sama nak dapat citizenship ikut pintu belakang!

    ‘Look at how many Chinese are serving in the police force’ as opposed to kaki pukul Baju Ungu PPS?!

    ‘It was the 84 percent Malay voters mainly who delivered the seats to the Alliance, and it was those Umno Malays who voted across ethnic lines that gave MCA the party’s seats in 1955’

    Betul tu Helen. MCA ada denial syndrome jadi kita semua kena selalu ingatkan depa!

    ‘When given voting rights as citizens, the Chinese immediately dealt a severe blow to the Alliance.’

    Tak habis-habis dengan semangat anti establishment depa. Apa depa ingat kami ni Manchus ka? Sampai lani KM Penang pun sama, dah jadi gomen pun masih menebal semangat anti establishment. Dia ingat Penang State gomen, kongsi gelap ka?

    ‘The Chief Minister with a Gangster Mentality

    Gangster mentality can be seen in people whose lives are ruled by criminal beliefs and actions. Just as there are different types of gangsters, the same applies to political leaders and politicians. Some have true diplomacy, elegance, and class while some are deficient in leadership quality, style, and character. When a chief minister demonstrates a gangster mentality by consistently challenging authorities, police and anyone who does not conform to his ideals, expectations and plans, citizens are then ushered into a new era of rebellion and anarchy.’

    http://tunneltruth.livejournal.com/1211.html

    “The People’s Autonomous Council Welcomes the MPAJA. Whole Heaven is Rejoicing”

    Patut la depa masih kata Chin Peng tu Hero. Hero kepada komunis macam depa la!

    ‘Unlike in Malaya, Brunei did not give away automatic citizenship to the Chinese nor did she make it so easy to be awarded citizenship.’

    And unlike in what was formerly known as Malaya too, Malaysia, the local Cinas were calling the very pribumis that had given them the right to citizenship, racist bigots, no less. Whereas in Brunei, the local Cinas there, are still begging, cajoling and pleading for citizenship, highlighting among others, the problems faced when traveling out of Brunei as stateless persons!

    How come the non-warga Brunei Cinas, did not label the Bruneian Malay Gomen as racist bigots, like the one in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak?

    ‘Those not enamoured of Wong and his ilk are called “hate-spewing, divisive, race-obsessed ignoramuses” by the screaming J-Star editorials.’

    WCW practices kata dulang paku serpih. Whole Heaven is Rejoicing indeed!

    And as for the gambar, Helen, I leave you with apa nak dikata?

    ‘Siapa “Stakeholder” Utama Akta Hasutan? Mungkin PM Najib Silap?’

    ‘Dalam taklimat khas kepada Majlis Raja-raja, PM Najib yang ternyata terkejut dengan pendedahan yang dipersembahkan kepada Duli-duli Tuanku memberi jaminan bahawa beliau akan mempertahankan isu-isu Islam, Raja, Bangsa dan Bahasa. Moga Najib berpegang pada JANJInya kepada keseluruhan Raja-raja Melayu itu.’

    http://www.bangkit.info/2014/09/siapa-stakeholder-utama-akta-hasutan.html

  4. Since Merdeka week, RTM1 has been showcasing documentaries almost nightly on VAT69, the fight for Merdeka, the fight against the communists, Bukit Kepong, Rantau Panjang Sarawak and a few more. Of course if MCA were to watch those documentaries, they would probably lodge a report against RTM for being racists, portraying the Cina not only in Malaya but also in Sarawak as communists.

    You asked “Are the Chinese by and large today involved in the defence of Malaysia as the MCA claims? ”
    The answer – no.

    A few days ago, Rosmah launched Tabung Pertiwi (if I’m not mistaken of the name) for veterans. During the launch, a lot of companies and individuals contributed to the fund. When they name the biggest donors, the companies and individuals who came up stage to hand over their donations were Malays. I did not see MCA in the group or for that matter any Cina. So, how now, MCA?

      1. Here’s the link –
        https://www.facebook.com/tabungpahlawan
        There’s a pic of the major contributors. I do not see YTL or Berjaya. Strange, I thought Berjaya has some connections in the defense industry.

        And if you look through the pics, it’s amazing how homogenous Malaysians are, same features, same coloring, truly 1Malaysia. Except for that 1 guy in turban.
        So, what do you say now, MCA? The Malaysian army is racist?

        And if you google, you will see that the Star is nor even in the first page results for the news.
        https://www.google.com.my/search?q=Kempen+Tabung+Pahlawan+2014&oq=Kempen+Tabung+Pahlawan+2014&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

        1. A twist to the Firster colour blindness. They’re green-skinned people. Thanks for the link, Orangkampung.

          null

          1. MCA jangan marah ya, dah lama very curious, kan JStar encourage us to come up with bold and brave voices, so here goes.

            Are you all sure you don’t know, no hints whatsoever, indications, tersilap cakap, terdengar bisikan that 90% of your members planned to defect during the last GE13?

            Masa branch meetings, AGM or sembang2 kat Kopitiam, CNY big makan eve, Hungry ghost festivals, when you go karaoke, weddings, birthday celebrations etc masakan mereka buat muka selamba aje dengan you all?

            Did they send secret messages inside mooncake or what? I find it impossible none of them breathe a single word? Before GE 13 what did you all do, makan gaji buta aje ke?

            I notice you all are very alert and react very fast ma to whatever a Malay fella say? RBA say so many things you all quiet wan. Then how come majority were making plans to dessert all the five years before GE13 you all don’t know or hear anything?

  5. I just got back from this country somewhere in South East Asia, the country is very developed, the people are very nice and friendly.

    Shops of all kinds and stuffs are for sale in the open. The people are well dressed. Infrastructure like electricity water and internet are readily available. The cars were all new and clean. The Airport fantastic. Roads, highways and bridges are nicely laid with good railways. Recently they have improve several ranking as the most competitive economy in the world. Millions of tourist and many are overstayers and illegals who send back millions to the villages of Indonesia, Vietnam, Bagladesh and many others.

    The children can go to whatever schools they parents choose. Chinese Indian schools and newspapers and TV stations too are in Chinese and Indian.

    This is one lucky country, living is harmony.

    I forgot the name of this country though. I am surprised that there is this country.

  6. Artikel terbaik Helen. Banyak yang saya masih tidak tahu rupanya.

    Artikel yang perlu di baca oleh KJ dan Saifuddin Abdullah serta kumpulan Liberalnya yang perlu mengetahui punca kerisauan Melayu keatas orang Cina yang tidak tahu berterima-kasih malah menentang hak orang-orang Melayu walaupun wlwpun orang Melayu telah berkorban dan berkongsi kerakyatan dengan mereka.

    ps,

    Jika ada versi BM amat baik.

  7. Cik Helen, with your permission, i will try my very best to distribute your article to umno members. Biar celek mata mereka.

    I am confident many of them will support voiceferously Tun Mahathirs latest suggestion to najib. See syeds blog on this matter.

    thanks

    1. Hmm…..you should distribute this article on social media i.e Facebook etc like what I m about to do and make sure the Chinese get this article too. Their younger generation who are obsessed with social media should read this.

      I take that after reading this article, they will go berserk and label the blogger as p*******. I will let anyone here know what the response from Chinese youth is tomorrow. It’ll be very interesting.

  8. Apapun, saya kurang senang dengan pemanggilan ‘Cina’ seperti merendah-rendahkan orang berbangsa Cina (Helen pun berbangsa Cina)… atau ‘tidak berterima kasih’ ‘lupa diri’

    Helen, pada pendapat anda, berapa ramaikah bilangan masyarakat bangsa Cina sekarang yang benar2 berjiwa Malaysia? Adakah ini sama dengan bangsa India?

    Can one ‘identify’ those truly, Chinese berjiwa Malaysia – the characteristic perhaps. The Christian Chinese? Those who send their children to sekolah kebangsaan?

    Or, impossible to?

    1. I call them Cina to differentiate them from Chinese from China, kalau tidak kena sebut Malaysian Chinese all the time. Letih menaip. It is not meant to be a derogatory term. Now dapster on the other hand ….

      Cina berjiwa Malaysia to me is not about “berterima kasih” or about which school you go to. It’s about being proud of being Malaysian, celebrating our differences and yet being together in nation building. It’s not about wanting to impose your brand of freedom on the majority, it’s not about putting down and finding faults with the majority and their customs and religion.

      We have lived with the azan being called out five times a day since before merdeka, why is it suddenly a cause of contention? Since Merdeka, the full dress code for the Dewan includes the songkok, why is it a problem now? If you know that when the traffic light is red you stop and you respect that, why can’t you respect that the religion of the federation is Islam?

      I know quite a few elderly Chinese who can’t speak Malay properly but they make an effort because they are Malaysian. When the Sultan mangkat recently they closed their shop out of respect, they did not sneer or make fun of the event. They join community activities like gotong-royong, not just the makan events or the events of their own community. They make an effort to be a part of the community.

      Google the pics from Merdeka celebration. Trying to spot a Cina is like looking for Waldo. It’s the little things that the dapsters do that erode the harmony of this nation, They are not just fighting for equality, they are fighting for supremacy.

      1. “They are not just fighting for equality, they are fighting for supremacy.”

        Agree!! This sums them up best.

  9. Tambahan…

    Minta maaf Helen. Bagaimana dengan anda sendiri, apa yang menjadikan anda berlainan dr Ong Ka Chuan?

    Saya teruja ni..! :)

  10. Is it just me or everyone else too that when we really really really look hard at him, Ah Jib Gor has got that DOWN syndrome look in HIM and the mental ability matching it.

    Seriously folks, stare at his image!!

  11. Ms H. Aiyo! Aiyo! We see the absurd spectacle of folks in responsible public positions who talk without any knowledge of our beloved Malaysia’s true history.

    It is true that the Chinese never fought against the Malayan Union in 1946. After the World War 2, the British Labour Government of Clement Atlee proposed the Malayan Union for the Malay Federated and Unfederated States. The Malayan Union ignored the special position of the Malays as regards their heritage, legacies, religion, culture and the Royal Sultanates. The Chinese and Indians were given EQUAL RIGHTS to the Malays who were way behind in socio-economic development.

    The Chinese before the Federation of Malaya were NATIONALS OF CHIANG KAI SHEK’S CHINA and held Chinese Government passports until 1949 when the Communists took-over. Those were dicey days for the Chinese in Malaya who could have been deported en masse back to China!

    It was the BRITISH ADVISERS to the Royal Sultanates who alerted the Royal Sultans to Clement Atlee’s Malayan Union which would have SWEPT AWAY THE MALAYS for good. From this point, the ROYAL SULTANS JOINED WITH THE MALAY RAKYAT to oppose the Malayan Union which was aborted in 1946. There were postage stamps with the words ‘Malayan Union’ which were not issued.

    You would have noticed that there was a hiatus in the Government of the Malay States between 1945-1951 until the Federation of Malaya came into being in 1951.

    During the period before 1951, you will also noticed the postage stamps were overprinted with the ‘BMA’. The British Military Administration (BMA) had to continue its rule from the end of the War 15 August 1945 to 1951 – the inception of the Federation of Malaya.

    The Chinese could NOT take part in the protests organised by the Royal Sultans and the Malay Rakyat in 1946 because they were Chinese citizens at the material time. Hence, it is INCORRECT to label them as passive because they have NO LOCUS STANDI to protest on Malayan political issues. Only the Malays could!

    In the formation of the Federation of Malaya, the MCA went on a recruitment drive from 1949 to 1951 to convince the Chinese to become Malayan citizens, Over 1,000,000 of the Chinese became Malayan citizens including my mother.

    THESE OVER 1,000,000 MALAYAN CITIZENS OF CHINESE ORIGIN NOT ONLY FOUGHT FOR MERDEKA WITH THE MALAYS, THE INDIANS AND OTHERS, THEY ALSO FOUGHT THE COMMUNISTS! I had a few relatives and friends who did. This is the truth. it was through the Alliance that the 3 major races joined hands together to fight for MERDEKA.

    Please note that without the participation of the Malayan Chinese to fight the Communists with the Malays and Indians, Merdeka could have been different.

    So, for those ignorant about the true history of our beloved Malaysia.

    IT IS TRUE ONLY THE MALAYS FOUGHT AGAINST THE MALAYAN UNION IN 1946 BECAUSE THE CHINESE WERE LEGALLY UNABLE TO DO SO.

    IT IS TRUE THAT ALL THE 3 MAJOR RACES FOUGHT FOR MERDEKA TOGETHER WITH UMNO’S LEADERSHIP.

    And finally, it was the towkays in the Alliance who paid out only Straits Dollars 250,000 as expenses to win the FIRST Alliance victory – the precursor of the BN.

    People in high places should know the historical truth and should not libel and slander innocent people like Ms H and myself. We, Malays, Indians and Chinese and all are patriots provided you know our REAL history!

    THE MORE WE KNOW ABOUT HOW THE MALAYSIA OF TODAY CAME ABOUT THE MORE YOU APPRECIATE THE UMNO AND THE MALAYS and the less you will respect the clowns in the political jobs seeking DAP and the ultra rich PKR.

      1. At 7:01 of video:
        “The Kuomintang Muslim governor sent imams to study in Mecca, But when two of them brought back to China the Salafi/Wahhabi ideology they were rejected by the Ikhwan (Ahl Sunnah wal Jamaah fraternity) and the other muslim sects in China, as heretics and traitors. The Ikhwan was backed by all the Kuomintang Muslim generals in the North-West, so whatever they say about the Salafis applies to everyone. Salafism or Wahhabism is anti-Chinese and does not belong in China.”

        at 7:30:
        “The prophetic hadith states: ‘Loving the faith is like loving the country’ ie. loving the party is loving the country. Loyalty to the Kuomintang to oppose the Communists and the Salafis is critical for all China’s Muslims. We are neither westerners nor communists. We should work toward reviving the Chinese nation. The Kuomintang is the only anti-imperialist party that will help Muslims in China, not salafism/wahhabism.”

        * * * * * *
        Furthermore, during the Second Sino-Japanese war, the Japanese persecuted, killed, and raped Hui Muslims (Chinese muslims). Mosques were destroyed and in many provinces Hui were slaughtered by Japanese troops or bombed. During the Rape of Nanking the Mosques in Nanjing were flowing with dead bodies after the Japanese slaughters. Japanese smeared Hui Mosques with pork fat, forcing Hui girls to serve as sex slaves and destroyed the cemeteries of the Hui. Many Hui fought in the war against Japan.

        During the Maoist Cultural Revolution, mosques along with other religious buildings were often defaced, destroyed or closed (and copies of the Quran were destroyed) along with temples, churches, Buddhist and Daoist monasteries, and cemeteries by the Red Guards. The communist government constantly accused Muslims and other religious groups of holding “superstitious beliefs” and promoting “anti-socialist trends”

        * * * * * *

        In the context of Malaysia, one is compelled to inquire: “How differently do the Maoist-inspired DAP leadership now mixed up with western evangelism perceive traditional Malay Muslims and their role in the national development.”

        It is clear that the Kuomintang Chinese respects orthodox Muslim beliefs and practices and are stalwarts against wahhabi encroachment – hence they would be friends of the traditional Malay pondok ulamas. Indeed, during the 19th century, the well-known Trengganu ulama, Tokku Paloh (Habib Abdul Rahman al-Idrus) had studied the religion in Mecca and Madinah together with the illustrious sufis, Sheikh Hillalullah Naqshbandiyyah of China, and Sheikh Abdul Rauf al-Singkel whose gravesite was amazingly unravaged by the furore of the 2004 tsunami at Acheh.

        1. keris. You have more intellect than the whole of the DAP leadership combined.

          Look at the 48 year no action record! Look at the kow-towing as 2nd fiddle in the PK! Look at the worshipping of a brilliant spiritual leader with [deleted] for Singapore! Look at the use of neophytes from the Holy Land! Look at the failure of the DAP to take Putrajaya in 3 Easy Steps!

          Look at the mess they created in Selangor! And many more! They are just a bunch of fakes and professional political job-seekers!

          1. Uncle Ed, you are speaking like a disgruntled Confucian scholar! What with all the moral impropriety and the confusions about man’s place between heaven and earth!

            1. keris. The only place I know today is that little place which practises the divine philosophy of Heaven and Earth to the chagrin of its just awaken citizens !

    1. The chinese did not fight the Malayan Union 46 not because there were “legally unable to do so” but more so because the MU46 was meant to accommodate them en block as the Malayan citizens. Therefore,no reason to protest.

      The Malays protested against MU46 because the chinese would be given citizenship by the British govt.

      1. veteran. You are right. But the Chinese were accused unfairly that they did not fight for Merdeka. Before the Federation of Malaya 1951, any recalcitrant Chinese was banished to China. This stopped them from doing anything illegal.

        It is good you agree that the Malayan Chinese did fight with their compatriots for Merdeka. Many pics show this !

        1. Tun Hamid’s original remarks are:

          “… yang menentang Malayan Union adalah orang Melayu.”

          “… yang berkorban nyawa menentang pengganas komunis semasa darurat adalah orang Melayu.”

          “… yang menuntut kemerdekaan adalah orang Melayu. Orang bukan Melayu menyertai gerakan menuntut kemerdekaan apabila mereka melihat ianya akan menjadi kenyataan, untuk menjaga kepentingan mereka.”

          “Perhatikan bahawa tujuan orang Melayu menuntut kemerdekaan dan tujuan orang bukan Melayu menyertai gerakan itu pun berbeza. Orang Melayu menuntut kemerdekaan untuk membebaskan tanahairnya.”

          “Orang bukan Melayu menyertai gerakan menuntut kemerdekaan untuk menjaga kepentingan mereka, selepas Merdeka.”

          http://www.tunabdulhamid.my/index.php/speech-papers-lectures/item/730-akta-hasutan-1948-kepentingan-melayu-dan-anak-negeri-sabah-dan-sarawak-dan-perpaduan-rakyat-malaysia

          The key here is that Tun Hamid says that for the Malays, Merdeka is to “free the land”.

          The Chinese did not fight to “free” the negeri-negeri Melayu because unlike the Malays, they were immigrants and not indigenous. Tanah Melayu did not belong to the Chinese. So logically, they did not struggle against the British for the purpose of “freeing” Tanah Melayu.

          And therein lies the difference between the participation of the Malays and the Chinese in the lead-up to 1957. Niat dan nawaitu kedua-dua pihak tidak seiras.

            1. Not surprising. The Nusantara region is huge. Nationalistic border doesn’t exist then. Physically, culturally and religiously similar, there is no problem.

  12. Why Helen Ang targeting MCA, instead of DAP who won most Chinese votes?

    Do you all understand that bilateral trade between Malaysia and China already exceeded 100 billion US dollars and still in surplus trend ?

    Who earn that money for Malaysians from China ?

    1. Why? Simple. Because MCA wears BN shirt but thinks like DAP.

      Its an open secret, but the clueless guy up there chose to do nothing.

      Yes, we benefit much from bilateral trade with China, but its a government effort not MCA.

      1. Very correct. The bilateral trade we have with China is a govt’s hard word NOT MCA or DAP’s. The same goes to all our bilateral trades with others.

        1. RoyWong jumud. Dia ingat bilateral trade dengan China kena hantaq Cina-Cina buat kerja kalau tak tak jadi.

          Zaman ni orang bukan Cina, taktau cakap Cina pun boleh berniaga dengan China la.

          Apa lia ingat Nigerians kat Guandong pakai MCA ka berniaga? macai MCA patut la semakin terkebelakang!

          Apa lagi MCA mahu? Itu LTL sebut preliminary dan crash pun tak betul. Buat malu negara saja!!!

          1. Helen Ang has personal hatred towards MCA, simply because she is not versed in Chinese language therefore feeling being isolated by local chineses.

            1. re: “Helen Ang has personal hatred towards MCA, simply because she is not versed in Chinese language”

              Oh? And the Malacca Baba founder of MCA Tan Cheng Lock was?

    2. What about you sir? None in your family and circle of friends knew the bulk of the MCA members were going to abandon BN?

      Another question here, how come it was beautifully engineered to create a huge tsunami for GE13. Someone must have done all the culculations enough to excite/lure majority of MCA members to decide to abandon BN en bloc? To join DAP and Pakatan. Ada berpakat ke dgn penghijrahan ini?

    3. Economic relationship is strictly business. Money. Both sides benefit.

      Who earn that money for Malaysia from China? You asked the wrong question. The business people earn that money for themselves. This is what is called business.

      Now do you understand what I m trying to tell you?

      For your information, China is a friend of Malaysia. China does not interfere in the domestic affairs of Malaysia, unlike western countries that support NGOs here through funding in the hope that regime change takes place.

    4. Roy Wong. Sir, if you or anyone else think that he or she can run the MCA better, then this is a true indicator that MCA’s leadership is lousy. Let the truth be told, the MCA never had a qualified leadership from the beginning to the present.

  13. Ms H. I commented on the general history of our beloved Malaysai. The following is a description of the Malayan Chinese leaders who fought for Merdeka with the Malays led by the Tun and the Indians led by Tun Sambanthan.

    1. Tun Tan Cheng Lock
    2. Tun Lee Hau Sik (HS) my relative – the first Minister of Finance whose signature was in the very first banknotes issued after Merdeka.
    3. Tun Leong Yew Koh
    4. Dato Leong Pak Kuan
    5. Dato Wong Pow Nee.
    and many others, towdays and the Chinese Guilds.
    6. Tan Sri C. C. Too. Highest ranking Chinese Adviser to the Federal Government on Communist Insurgency. 1951-1984. My relative.

    I seek the understanding of our fellow citizens who are not aware of the true history of the Malaysian Chinese, not to voice their ignorance of the part played by all the Chinese here for centuries.

    The ignorance of the true history of Malaysia and its races arose out of the compartmentalization of the different language streams of the media – some of which were/are politicised – even the news between Malaysia and Singapore is compartmentalized.

    We in Malaysia know nothing about what is really happening in Singapore. But in Singapore, all the bad news about Malaysia is reported. I believe the Tunku made an understanding with LKY to respect each other’s political territory but the latter just ignored this since 1965!

    1. You must ask yourself how you deem free goods.

      Would you appreciate your SmartPhone if you got it free like what if done by Malay Mail with their Samsung phone or would you appreciate bettter if you have to slog every month to pay the installment of your IPhone for 24 months?

      An analogy to the lupa daratan kids.

      Same thing with citizenship. See how tough it is to get US citizenship and see how easy just with a stroke of a pen because one is at the right time right place gets citizenship like Malaya.

      1. We worked hard for decades, in order to support the infrastructure development in this countries, now you question origin of local Chinese again ?

        1. Your command of the English language is, how shall I say, below average. This is all the more reason why English is to be made a must pass subject for those wanting to graduate with a degree from public universities.

          Now no one is denying the contribution made by the Chinese or any other ethnic group. They are recorded in our history books for all eternity. Go read them. Get educated.

          Nobody is questioning the origin of local Chinese either. These too are recorded in the history books. On the contrary the Chinese themselves question their own origin, there are even those who deny that Chinese were brought to the then Malaya to work as coolies. Why is it that the Chinese cannot own up to the fact that the vast majority of present day Chinese Malaysians are the descendants of the coolies? Is it because this is something that puts them in an unfavorable light?

          Or is it because you and people like you have an inferiority complex?

          1. Is it a crime to be born from coolies? The same goes with Australia convicts and workers from the UK… but these do not try to white wash their history.

            I believe many are ashamed to be associated with coolies, they all think they descend from Princess Elsa of Frozen.

            Worst of all the evagenlistas says they are descendents of the King of David, some Jewish guy and not some coolie from Fujian.

            The psychology of the local Chinese is of an ultra inferiority complex. Do you see American Italians try to hide their migrant Italian roots? Does Ronert De Niro say he is a descendent of some king of France or he says he comes from a working class Italian family? Working class roots does not make one low class.

            People who invent their roots are the low class – yes so stupid to believe that Fujian is a district in Israel… that is bloody stoooopid.

        2. Emm..my english pon is so so only, not like most of other readers here.. berasap weh.. but from my understanding… it’s not questioning the origin of local chinese, but their attitude of kaduk naik junjung dan beri betis nak peha…

          1. Sometimes I find that bahasa Melayu conveys what I want to say when English doesn’t cut it, e.g. the words

            – lah
            – konon
            – tak kan
            – apasal
            – selamba
            – rileks aje nampak (relax in English no oomph)

            many more …

            1. biawak

              and perpatah like “mendukung biawak hidup”. Saying lizard in English doesn’t come close.

            2. Saya lagi susah nak Oxford english..

              Kawasan saya payah nak dapat Apek2 yg fasih dalam BM and BI (BI mungkin satu dalam 10K). So how to communicate effectively among us, hari2 pulak tu?

              Kena rajin guna tangan, kaki dan expressions. Volume tu faham2 aje lah.. Kalau tak cekap boleh salah faham. Kami sembang mesra tapi strangers may think kami sedang bergaduh!

              1. ‘Kena rajin guna tangan, kaki dan expressions.’

                LOL.

                Rina, harap-harap tiada yang tercedera semasa proses bertukar-tukar pendapat tersebut berlangsung hendaknya!

        3. Err i thought the government are the one to handle infrastructure development. Your conglomerate such as ytl, berjaya etc get PAID to build those infrastructure. As a result, they got rich in this country of plenty. Dont tell me they do it for free. They should be the one to be thankful of the political and economic stability maintained by our forefathers.

  14. Ms.Helen. Its a fantastic article, you are a true Malaysian. Love you.

    Why cant the majority Chinese be more like you instead of being in denial and anti Malay and establishment. We can live peacefully and harmoniously and prosperously.

    I pray to Allah that we will leave to the next generation a peaceful and harmonious Malaysia.

    1. rossab. The Malaysian Chinese of today especially those below 40 have been de-triballised through urbanisation brought about by the NEP. Free sex, easy life-styles and the loss of the traditional Confucius values of their parents and grand-parents who were tough and hard as nails.

      Then, these Malaysian Chinese know nuts about the real Malaysian history which they could not read anywhere! And last but not least they worship the wrong spiritual god [deleted]

      1. Uncle Ed,

        Your obsession with Lee Kuan Yew – deleted above – is excessive and misplaced in a Malaysian blog.

        1. Ms H. It is no obsession but the presentation of the true facts which your friend has caused havoc in our Malaysian politics vis-a-vis the Malaysian Chinese who never had a true leader. They look up to him as a result and spewed forth all sorts of un-Malaysian like remarks. You cannot cut-off the politics of the Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian politics from the politics of your friend who is really obsessed with his control of our beloved Malaysia and its inhabitants. Please take an overview away from crossing the Ts and dotting the Is and cast your net wider ! Sorry for my remarks about your friend.

          1. That once revered leader has now aggrandized his dynasty over his old gifted colleagues and his loyal citizenry.

            1. Jade Emperor, you are great in your astute observations of facts, political facts ! If all Malaysian Chinese are like you, we make a strong beloved Malaysia with all the Bumiputras and Indians !

          2. Ms H. Despite of your avoidance of that character, I think you are a great patriot and Nationalist without any bias. Please keep this up !

        2. Ms H. How do you explain your obsession with the DAP which is the creation of your friend in 1966 ? For fun and games ?

        3. Ms H. Please always note I have never picked on anyone personally. If the guy or gal is great, then let us look at his or her public policies for the good or bad. This is nothing unusual. With the gent in question, I am only interested in his performance in the public arena. The proof of the pudding is in the eating Madam !

  15. The current KLCC Petronas Gallery theme is something about the forming of Malaysia.

    One of the walls has a vintage newspaper frontpage blowup. It has Tunku asking the Singaporean Chinese not to try to make a Little China but to accept Malayan characteristics.

    Today, Singapore primarily use English not Chinese. They are the leading voice in Asean asking the US to have a big military presence here to counter China. When some China nationals say the neghbour’s cooking of curry is smelly, the whole flat cook curry to show solidarity.

    The jingoism against Chinese was the same then as it is now. But in the Singapore case, it was much ado over nothing. As the great guy said, can u all dun be so serious?

  16. For RBA to read this excellent write up is quite impossible, but it’s perferct for those whose mind poisoned by them.

  17. Excellent write! I also wonder why Chinese always want everything relaxed for them? On the granting of citizenship en masse, Malay language requirement for a citizen was relaxed to accommodate them.

    Up to know, even the Malay language syllabus is too relaxed in the vernacular school not on par with national school syllabus. Nak periksa pun nak yang senang. Soooo manja! Look what happens now to those Malay fluency as rakyat Malaysia?!

    “Di sini lahirnya cinta” but to those, “di sini they sow hatred!”

  18. Thank you Pn. Helen! I really love this article and I’m saving this into my pc for important reference material.

    Great piece, grateful for more!

  19. “Prior to 1957, the Chinese were not citizens of the country”. You are wrong. I have documentary proof that there were Chinese given citizenship of Selangor. Either the country that you are pointing to did not exist or Selangor is not part of that country.

    1. Go ahead, show your proof. And provide the context: How many Chinese citizens of Selangor against how many Chinese altogether resident in Selangor?

      1. Kwong Choy Khee. You are right. My citizenship certificate is my mother’s who was a Selangor citizen. My name appeared in hers because I was a minor. All Chinese Selangorians after 1951 became Malayan citizens- in preparation for Merdeka in 1957 !

        1. Quote: “the Malaya-born Chinese who remained judicial subjects of the rulers and British-protected persons were not subjects of the rulers for the purpose of federal citizenship”

          http://books.google.com.my/books?id=-1N5AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=chinese+1948+malaya+citizenship&source=bl&ots=Zf8B8xe1Y_&sig=EjHyJ0ZfdQTo2XZrgOSCg3C6SV4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bY0RVJGJMJacugTArIGADQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

          You refer to the year 1951, which means the Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948 was in effect since this was before 1957.

          I will post an article on the 1948 agreement tomorrow.

          1. Ms H. All Chinese only obtained their citizenships post 1948 arising from a campaign by the MCA. No one heard of your lky and the DAP then !

            1. The campaign by the MCA received a lukewarm response and there were few takers.

              Can you show me any documentation of the results (figures/numbers) of the MCA citizenship drive before 1957?

              1. Ms H. If there were few takers, how is it that our beloved Malaysia ended up with so many Malayan Chinese citizens ? I have no access to my world famous library of 3,000 volumes of Malaysiana which I donated to UTAR 3 years ago. I am sure there must be some references to the MCA citizenship drive as they were the only interested party around at the material time. I know for sure the new villagers became citizens because of the MCA.

                1. re: “Malaysia ended up with so many Malayan Chinese citizens”

                  That was the Merdeka citizenships collected in 1958.

                  You were talking about 1951.

                  1. Ms H. The Chinese did not become Malayan citizens in 1958. No way. I have in my possession citizenship certs with the early dates. Why are you so sure the Chinese became citizens in 1958 ? The first joint political effort the Alliance was in the General Elections of 1954 ! Please check your sources again.

                    1. re: “Why are you so sure the Chinese became citizens in 1958?”

                      That’s what the Registrar of Citizens data reveals.

                    2. Ms H. The Registrar’s statistics on the Malayan Chinese citizenship numbers could be a discrepancy or the number of Malayan Chinese citizens for year 1958. The big recruitment drive for the Chinese fo be Malayans happened much much earlier. No doubt about this. The record should be in the Chinese press. This is the problem with the unqualified MCA leadership to this day. No proper history or statistics of any kind were kept by the MCA. How to argue with the others when there is no basis for argument in support? This is the result of the leadership not being academically inclined or just dumb. This gives rise to the question ‘What has the MCA been doing all these years?’

                    3. re: “The Registrar’s statistics on the Malayan Chinese citizenship numbers could be a discrepancy or the number of Malayan Chinese citizens for year 1958”

                      (a) It is data provided by the Registrar-General of Citizens. Why should there be a discrepancy?

                      (b) The figure of 822,567 refers to the number of non-Malays who became citizens by registration in the year 1957.

                      (c) The total population of Malaya in 1957 was 6,278,758. The Chinese were 30.8 percent of the Malayan population then. So to answer your question, the number of Chinese living in Tanah Melayu in year 1958 was roughly 1.93 million (going by the 1957 statistics).

                      re: “The big recruitment drive for the Chinese to be Malayans happened much much earlier.”

                      True. But to recruit does not mean that your targets signed up or that they qualified. MCA has also claimed that the party is currently recruiting members. Wakakakakaka.

                      re: “No proper history or statistics of any kind were kept by the MCA.”

                      If no proper statistics of any kind have been kept by the MCA, then why are you disputing the statistics I’ve reproduced from the Registrar-General of Citizens?

                      re: “How to argue with the others when there is no basis for argument in support?”

                      Then please don’t argue with me when you’re not able to produce any basis for argument in support.

                      re: “This is the result of the leadership not being academically inclined or just dumb. This gives rise to the question ‘What has the MCA been doing all these years’?”

                      Stabbing the BN in the back.

                    4. Ms H. I do not understand the bee in your bonnet on this one. The figure as mentioned in the Registrars Report for 1958 is CORRECT. It said up to 1958, nearly 1 million Chinese became citizens. These Chinese did not become citizens in 1958 but over time from the beginning of the MCA citizenship drive from 1951 or thereabouts. The Statistics and the facts are very clear. It is also logistically impossible to process nearly 1 million Chinese in 1958 into citizens in just one year. Do you know in those days the Immigration Office was housed in a badminton hall next to the KL Railway Station ? And everything was done manually and at a snail pace until the 1980s ?

                    5. re: “The figure as mentioned in the Registrars Report for 1958 is CORRECT. It said up to 1958, nearly 1 million Chinese became citizens.”

                      It appears that you do not know how to read data.

                      The table does NOT say that “up to 1958” (which is your own interpretation), one million Chinese became citizens.

                      The table clearly said that in the year 1958 alone, 822,567 non-Malays became citizen by registration.

                      The table also said that in the year 1959 alone, 67,227 non-Malays became citizen by registration. And in 1960 alone, 77,858 non-Malays became citizen by registration.

                      re: “These Chinese did not become citizens in 1958 but over time from the beginning of the MCA citizenship drive from 1951 or thereabouts.”

                      The Chinese may have become citizens in a trickle over time since 1948 but nonetheless in the year 1958 alone, 822,567 non-Malays became citizen by registration.

                      re: “The statistics and the facts are very clear.”

                      Yes they are. It is you who are confused. Tun Hamid and Tun Mahathir are correct.

                      re: “It is also logistically impossible to process nearly 1 million Chinese in 1958 into citizens in just one year.”

                      Please clear up your confusion. The one million number does not refer to Chinese alone. It refers to non-Malays. And it does not refer to the year 1958 alone. It covers the period between 1957 (presumably from September ’57 onwards) and 1960.

                      re: “Do you know in those days the Immigration Office was housed in a badminton hall next to the KL Railway Station? And everything was done manually and at a snail pace until the 1980s?”

                      Were you working in the Immigration Office in the 1950s that you’re so confident to dispute the statistics provided by the Registrar-General of Citizens?

                    6. Ms H. You are quite het up over this one. Please do no accuse me that I am MCA. I am not. What I said is factual. I note you shifted the date 1958 to 1957 and no more mention of theTun and the good Dr. I know the MCA has no vital statistics of any kind from the early days. You may do your doctorate on this !

                    7. re: “Ms H. You are quite het up over this one.”

                      I have been factual and precise by providing statistics from the Registrar-General of Citizens.

                      re: “Please do no accuse me that I am MCA. I am not.”

                      When did I say that you were?

                      re: “What I said is factual.”

                      You said: “No proper history or statistics of any kind were kept by the MCA.” See, your comment @ https://helenang.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/my-reply-to-mcas-criticism-of-tun-hamid/#comment-130164

                      re: “I note you shifted the date 1958 to 1957 and no more mention of the Tun and the good Dr.”

                      (a) On the contrary, I’ve explained together with the relevant data figures that the “one million” number cited for the Merdeka citizenships covered the period between 1957 and 1960.

                      (b) You must remember that we got our Independence on 31 Aug 1957. That left only four months remaining for the year (Sept-Dec) in which the Merdeka instrument could take effect. Thus the bulk of the Merdeka citizenships were processed in 1958.

                      (c) I did not shift the year from 1957 to 1958 as you allege. I said that in 1957, Malaya had a population of 6,278,758, out of which 30.8 percent were Chinese. The data on public record refers to 1957 and so I had no choice but to cite 1957.

                      This would be the accurate figure since it is the official figure that the authorities released in the landmark the year we got Independence. It is not every year the government conducts a population census. The series of census were conducted in 1970, 1980, 1991, 2000 and 2010 or once every 10 years.

                      (d) As for mentioning the Tun, I have explained that Dr Mahathir highlighted this topic of Merdeka citizenships for public discussion. He is what we call an “opinion leader” or trendsetter.

                      I have however never referred to him as the source of my statistics.

                      The numbers I reproduced were taken from the Registrar-General of Citizens. So what are you trying to imply by falsely imputing that I’m making no further mention of the Tun? You’re purposely trying to cloud the issue.

                  2. Ms H. You did not supply the full statistics of the rregistration of the Chinese as Malayan Chinese in the first place. And you should furnish the statistics from the beginning of the Federation of Malaya when the Chinese were Chinese Nationals who became Malayan Chinese to and through Merdeka. Then, no one can say you do magic shows !

                    1. Why don’t you supply your data if you’re so adamant in disagreeing?

                      The table below is straightforward enough. Pls learn to read. It gives two breakdowns: By registration and by naturalization

                      Click to enlarge

                      null

                    2. i dun understand how this statistic relevant,

                      the chinese (mca) role is they support umno, not onn jaafar, onn jaafar 20th state is accusation against umno, not chinese, target is malay voter sentiment. chinese mostly in bandar, 11% or 12% still reflect the chinese inclination. umno was a poor party, mca was a rich party. u cant make thing move if no money. at that time there are many chinese in army, police, govt servant.

                      the most pertinent decision is, any wrong move could turn the 1 mil chinese to support chin peng, we could become vietnem.

                      i am not saying u tipu, helen, but yr writes reflect what is in the rightist mind. i cant say they r wrong, it merely not objective enough.

                    3. Dato’ Onn’s speech about MCA aiming to make Tanah Melayu the 20th province of China was delivered to his party IMP in April 1953.

                      You claim that what Dato’ Onn said was “accusation against Umno, not Chinese, target is Malay voter sentiment”.

                      You’re not wrong about the Malay voter sentiment being targetted but nonetheless – don’t forget – Dato’ Onn was Minister of Home Affairs at that time under the British administration/High Commissioner.

                      He was hinting that Chinese elements were disloyal to the country – same theme as the local Kuomintang supporters celebrating China National Day on Oct 10.

                      Specific to that period in 1953, Dato’ Onn said what he said in relation to the opposition objection’s to the Education Ordinance, the demand for a Chinese university and Hartal. Hence it was of national/federal interest and not just confined to party politics.

                      MCA condemned Dato’ Onn for his speech and moved a motion to censure him in the Legislative Council. However MCA’s motion was defeated 40 to 9, with 20 abstentions. The British government of Malaya took the position that it had “full confidence” in Dato’ Onn despite the MCA’s strong objection.

                    4. re: “the chinese (mca) role is they support umno, not onn jaafar … umno was a poor party, mca was a rich party. u cant make thing move if no money. at that time there are many chinese in army, police, govt servant.”

                      (a) Can you elaborate on what you mean by the Chinese-MCA role in “support” of Umno? Can you name any policies?

                      (b) You’re correct about MCA being Mister Moneybags in their early honeymoon relationship with Umno.

                      However in May 1953, the government banned the MCA lottery which was one of the main vehicles that MCA used to raise funds.

                      (c) re: “there are many Chinese in army, police, govt servant” … Can you provide the statistical figures? Then we can discuss further.

                      Otherwise I’m tempted to think that you’ve been taken in (wrt to Chinese in army, police) by the tall tales told by a particular someone about his many Uncles.

                    5. re: “Chinese mostly in bandar, 11% or 12% still reflect the Chinese inclination”

                      Are you referring to the Chinese who made up 11.2 percent of the registered Malayan voters in 1955?

                      You say they’re the bandar Chinese. That’s a logical conclusion because the towners would naturally be more savvy to take advantage of the opportunity to become citizens while the New Village Chinese would not have been citizens in 1955.

                      It’s even more probable that this 11.2 percent Malayan electorate were your favourite bogeymen in Malacca and Penang. And they may have contributed to Alliance’s landslide victory in 1955.

                      But to say that the “11% or 12% still reflect the Chinese inclination” – if I’ve read you correctly that you’re referring to the 1955 electorate – is a lacuna.

                      As the subsequent 1959 general election results showed, once the rest of the Chinese were enfranchized with the power to vote, the Alliance crashlanded at the polls in terms of popular vote count (compared to their historic high in 1955).

                    6. Ms H. Why are you so het up over the MCA drive for the China Chinese to be Malayans from about 1951. Why are you so angry ? Why do you want to split hairs over nothing ? The statistics you furnished have glaring omissions. Ask any statistician ! The non-Malays were not broken down into different races. For all you know, the 822,567 could all have been Indians ! Also, the statistics which you furnished began in the year 1957. For a complete picture, the figures should begin from the birth of the Federation of Malaya. I now wonder how the Government could process 822,567 persons in one year 1958 or were they all born as citizens in 1958 ? The statistics you furnished brought more questions than answers. Sorry !

                    7. re: “Ms H. … Why are you so angry? Why do you want to split hairs over nothing?”

                      Uncle, you’re on the verge of apoplexy. Better you keep calm and eat a Cadbury.

                      As far as I’m concerned, I’ve provided precise data sets. You’re the one disputing the stats whose authenticity are recognized by our ex-premier of 22 years and our former Chief Justice and other authorities.

                      You, on the other hand, have provided no data at all. Zilch.

                      re: “The statistics you furnished have glaring omissions. Ask any statistician! The non-Malays were not broken down into different races. For all you know, the 822,567 could all have been Indians!”

                      822,567 non-Malays became citizens by registration in Merdeka-1958 whereas the Malays became citizens by operation of law.

                      The British colonial government took a census of Malaya in 1957. Chinese made up 37.2 percent of the population of 6,279,000 in 1957. Indians made up 11.3 percent of the population. (Figures might vary slightly depending on the sources cited)

                      So even though the 822,567 figure is not ethnically broken down into Chinese, Indian and others, the general population ratio would still apply.

                      For you to claim that “the 822,567 could all have been Indians!” defies logic, needless to say.

                      re: “Also, the statistics which you furnished began in the year 1957. For a complete picture, the figures should begin from the birth of the Federation of Malaya.”

                      From the 1948 Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, 350,000 Chinese qualified as citizens by operation of law. Between 1949 and 1952, an additional 307,000 Chinese successfully applied to become federal citizens.

                      Dr Helen Ting calculated from KJ Ratnam’s figures that 819,000 Chinese acquired citizenship in 1953.

                      There is a difference between the earlier period (1948-1957) citizenships and post-1957. The question with regard to Merdeka citizenships is whether they would have qualified if the criteria were to be strictly enforced.

                      re: “I now wonder how the Government could process 822,567 persons in one year 1958 or were they all born as citizens in 1958?”

                      What qualifies you to evaluate whether a government department is capable of doing the job or not?

                      re: “The statistics you furnished brought more questions than answers. Sorry!”

                      The stats are fine. The shortcoming lies with the individual who is unable to read a simple table.

                    8. wrong? what if mca choose to work with imp n not umno? would onn jaffar asserted the same? the 20th state accusation is to imply umno work with kmt, betray the malay, fact is onn jaafar changed his moderate stance to take a more extreme one to get the malay support. no?

                      it is well known at that time umno need mca (vise versa) while mca can have a choice to work with anyone include imp, they r the so call sole representative of the chinese vs mcp of course. today of course u can claim u dun need mca, dun need chinese n etc, cakap kosong siapa tak tahu?

                    9. re: “wrong?”

                      I apologize for not writing in plainer English that you can easily understand. I wrote, “You’re not wrong about the Malay voter sentiment …”

                      “You’re not wrong about the Malay voter sentiment being targetted but nonetheless – don’t forget – Dato’ Onn was Minister of Home Affairs at that time under the British administration/High Commissioner.”

                      “not wrong” is a double negative, like saying HY is “not thin” instead of just simply saying HY is fat.

                      re: “what if mca choose to work with imp n not umno?”

                      I’ll be crystal clear this time. You’re correct that MCA ditched IMP for Umno. MCA was a backstabber even back then.

                      re: “would onn jaffar asserted the same?”

                      Obviously Dato’ Onn and MCA tidak sehaluan. MCA is Malayan/Malaysian CHINESE Association. Dato’ Onn wanted to open Umno to all the races which would have made the party the United MALAYAN National Organization.

                      I believe that Dato’ Onn’s nationalism would have been the same, i.e. he would not have tolerated split loyalty.

                      re: “the 20th state accusation is to imply umno work with kmt, betray the malay”

                      MCA then, as now, supported the policy of Chinese schools. The Education Ordinance (which MCA was against) would have affected the status of vernacular school.

                      Dato’ Onn said MCA wanted to make Malaya the 20th province of China. I’m not sure of the syllabus in the Chinese schools back in 1953 but we’re still looking at the same and unresolved core argument of the Satu-Sekolah-Untuk-Semua gang who have been arguing that SRJK(C) is failing to produce Malaysians (bebudak berjiwa Malaysia dan kental semangat kebangsaan mereka dengan kaki berpijak di bumi di mana langit dijunjung).

                      Dato’ Onn said MCA wanted to make Malaya the 20th province of China, among other reasons, because MCA was not agreeable to the Education Ordinance.

                      re: “fact is onn jaafar changed his moderate stance to take a more extreme one to get the Malay support, no?”

                      Yes. MCA stabbed him in the back.

                      I wrote not too long ago that Najib is also tacking to the right. BN in the peninsula is effectively dead after the tsunami washed away 33 Chinese seats, i.e. MCA and Gerakan’s combined losses comparing their GE11 and G13 report card.

                      re: “it is well known at that time umno need mca (vise versa) while mca can have a choice to work with anyone include imp”

                      Umno appreciated MCA’s money, yes. And MCA’s organizational skills. But did they really “N-E-E-D” MCA to survive? The answer is ‘No’.

                      Umno was politically strong in 1946. They mobilized demos where tens of thousands participated to protest the Malayan Union. That’s a big crowd for that era.

                      re: “they r the so call sole representative of the chinese vs mcp of course”

                      This statement is more accurate than your previous statement. The British appreciated MCA more (i.e. MCA was more useful to the Brits than it was to Umno) to make the transition to 1957 smoother, and to safeguard the orang putih business and commercial interests. Order and stability was beneficial for the British withdrawal.

                      In fact, the Brits were instrumental in the setting up of the MCA and its initial development was prodded by the colonial officers. Tan Cheng Lock was more pukka sahib than he was Dong Zong (an argument HY can appreciate).

                      re: “today of course u can claim u dun need mca, dun need chinese n etc, cakap kosong siapa tak tahu?”

                      Back in 1957, the Raja-Raja Melayu could have opted to take the same route as the Sultan of Brunei. It would only have delayed Merdeka by a bit.

                      The co-operation of MCA and MIC speeded up Merdeka, true.

                      But if a hardliner instead of Tunku (one of whose wives was Chong Ah Mei, btw) was leading Umno, then the Merdeka citizenships would have turned out differently.

                      * daughter of a tin mining tycoon, Chong Ah Yong, see http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Lady%20Meriam

                    10. onn ban mca lottery n suggest to ban race base party is target umno n mca, in fact his move created the opposite effect where the two (umno n mca) work more closely. no policy, it is about money. umno is not poor n mca the towkeh party meh? no statistic, but as far as i know, british trust malay n chinese that have their education in british. i assume (sorry i am not doing research n no time) the eng speaking class is either with the british admin, or taukeh, what else? cannot be a teacher in chinese school or cis right?

                      one uncle onli la, many uncle meh? u know him better.

                    11. re: “onn ban mca lottery n suggest to ban race base party is target umno n mca”

                      Yup, correct about the motive behind disallowing the lottery. As for banning race-based parties … the irony of it all. Today DAP is making the same demand.

                      re: “in fact his move created the opposite effect where the two (umno n mca) work more closely.”

                      MCA and Umno enjoyed a short honeymoon period. Then the rift started. HS Lee with Tunku, and later Lim Chong Eu left MCA to become opposition.

                      But in our time, MCA cheated on Umno with DAP (GE13), and Umno cheated on MCA with PAS (hudud). Might as well they divorce.

                      re: “no policy, it is about money. Umno is not poor n mca the towkeh party meh?”

                      Umno realised they needed their own war chest. Ku Li was instrumental in building it.

                      re: “no statistic, but as far as i know, british trust malay n chinese that have their education in british. i assume (sorry i am not doing research n no time) the eng speaking class is either with the british admin, or taukeh, what else? cannot be a teacher in chinese school or cis right?”

                      This same English-speaking class but not limited to them alone (cue Teresa, Nga, Yeo Bee Yin) are taking the lead with the politics of evangelism that is marshalling the Chinese electorate into a head-on collision with Melayu Bangkit 2.0.

                      re: “one uncle onli la”

                      An uncle behind every bush and a story to tell about every commie ambush.

                    12. abt ed point b4 merdaka, what i read is in 1950, citizen (fedaral), non malay is 0.73 mil vs total of 2.27 mil. 1953 chinese increase to 1.15 mil. n after 1957 is as what u stated.

                    13. Malayan citizenship laws were liberalized in 1952 – this explains your 1953 figures.

                      However, it does not take away from the point made by Tun M and Tun Hamid about the one million Merdeka citizenships.

                    14. sorry my mistake on ‘wrong’.

                      tcl prefer to work with imp. hsl chose to work with umno. bandar kl election mca (under lee) win 6, umno 3. this make onn jaafar n tcl in a difficult situation to continue.

                      onn jaafar is “visionary” but msian is not, what can we do? however mca big defeat in 1969 have everything to do with chinese education. so mca is actually not well received by both govt (onn jaafar to tunku) n chinese in general. for merdeka the malay dun need chinese, but i think the party that work closely with chinese would become the govt, n like i said, the citizenship is also work to neutralise the chinese left stand.

                      i write from memory so they could be many mistake, pls highlight if there is any.

                    15. re: “but i think the party that work closely with Chinese would become the govt”

                      Yes, also make life easier/more orderly for the departing British. Their tin mines, rubber estates and other assets and properties would be safe. The Brits did not want to leave behind chaos and anarchy.

                      Other nations were forged by “blood and iron”. Look at the toll that the Partition of the Indian sub-continent took on lives. For our Independence, the parti paling tidak apa Umno took the path of least resistance.

                      re: “n like i said, the citizenship is also work to neutralise the chinese left stand”

                      Quite correct. It was a carrot to wean away the Chinese from the commies.

                      re: “so MCA is actually not well received by both govt (Onn Jaafar to Tunku) n Chinese in general”

                      So MCA should now do the honourable thing.

                      Take Umno’s Taming Sari and stick it in their fat (MCA) stomach.

                    16. Ms H. Thank you very much for giving me a fair hearing.

                      Ah ! You are now into hurling personal insults and abuse at people with different opinions. Please do not do so which I advised Malaysia Chronicles’ sub-continent types, 2 years ago if they want their Blog to be World class. So your Blog can be World class and decent too, Ms H if you stop being personal at me.

                      I have a list of 53 names who thought I would die of apopplexy and I die first. They all died. The youngest was my son-in-law from a Chinese Island, age 39 !

                      Man or Woman proposes ! God disposes !

              2. You could only talk of history, you don’t know the mainstream thought of the contemporary local Chineses, as you could not read Chinese newspapers

                1. Do you know history?

                  The mainstream thought of contemporary local Chinese is well reflected in the almost total wipe-out of the MCA in the last general election.

                  1. So you agreed to the fact that history was written by the winners and choose to pursue your own glory?

                    1. Do you know any history at all?

                      I cited William Roff, Heng Pek Koon and Fujio Hara in this article.

                      None of them are Malay or did you fail to notice?

              3. Helen, according to the book Malaysia: The Making of a Nation, in 1952, a committee was formed under a strong support by Dato’ Onn Jaafar to amend citizenship provision for non-Malays. Because of this amendment, by May 1952, 346,935 aliens had been naturalized, of whom about 300,000 were Chinese (sic), refer to page 29 under chapter Malay Dominance. Your number in table above (year 1957) from Registrar-General of Citizens doesn’t seem to gel with the numbers in the book. Anyway this is just a quick scan on google books, don’t have time to counter check other sources, or maybe I interpreted this wrongly.

                1. You’ll have to elaborate.

                  1952 would still have come under the perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948 and the terms of citizenship were stricter.

                  It was only with Merdeka that the terms were relaxed and citizenship granted en masse.

                  1. Ms H. With due respect, is this your own interpretation ? The facts as supported by documents point to a much earlier date of the early 1950s and not 1958 ! It is a pity or is it not a pity that you were not born then so as to have the real citizenship cert !

                    1. The one million Merdeka citizenships mentioned by Tun Mahathir and Tun Hamid refer to the 1958 figures.

                      Dr Malik Munip is a historian.

                      As he explained in paragraph (25), being the subject in a state does not translate into federal citizenship.

                    2. Ms H. You refer to TDM etc. Commonsense dictates that we cannot get 1 million Chinese to be citizens in just one year 1958 especially registration and vetting have to be done manually.. Please check your sources. Remember also that Merdeka did not automatically make the Chinese citizens as claimed. There are some who are still non-citizens carrying red ICs. It was the citizenship drive mounted by the MCA from 1951 or thereabouts which created the 1 million Malayan Chinese as mentioned in 1958.

                    3. No, I referred to the data provided by the Registrar-General of Citizens. My sources are good.

                      I mentioned Tun because he recently highlighted this matter of the “one million” Merdeka citizenships. If Dr Mahathir had raised mention the topic, then the Parti Paling Tidak Apa (PPTA) would not have brought up the matter for public attention.

                      Just like very few people are aware the Watikah Pemasyhuran Kemerdekaan signed by Tunku Abdul Rahman on 31 Aug 1957 had proclaimed our country name as Persekutuan TANAH MELAYU.

                      To be precise, what is usually referred to as the “one million Merdeka citizenships” actually cover the years 1957-1960, i.e.

                      in rounded figures: 20,000 in 1957 + 823,000 in 1958 + 67,000 in 1959 + 78,000 in 1960 = 988,000 (“one million”)

                      But the one million does not refer to Chinese alone. It refers to non-Malays.

                    4. Ms H. Thje correct interpretation or wording of the 1 million Malayan Chinese in 1958 should be…..’by 1958, 1 million Chinese became citizens’. Merdeka was not the magic wand which turned the 1,000,000 China Chinese into Malayan Chinese overnight. Far from it. This fact is to the credit of the MCA which they never bothered to capitalize politically Due to lack of intellect, the MCA leadership became distracted by money and eventually lost the political will to overpower even the poor leadership of the DAP. The Malaysian Chinese have a real political problem now in their political leaderships being led by the nose by whoever is in the limelight which does not really represent their inner desires or wishes. This means now MALAYSIAN CHINESE POLITICS is big deal and MALAYSIAN CHINESE ECONOMICS is nothing. Is this new fangled un-Chinese and un-tradition way is what every Malaysian Chinese wants ? And within the background that the DAP leadership does not want to be the Prime Minister ! This is why I say clowns are born every day !

                    5. Uncle Ed,

                      re: “The correct interpretation or wording of the 1 million Malayan Chinese in 1958 should be…..’by 1958, 1 million Chinese became citizens’.”

                      On the contrary, Tun Hamid is quite correct to say that because of the Merdeka instrument, one million non-Malays became citizens (at the stroke of the pen, so to speak).

                      As I’ve explained, the “one million” Merdeka number is (rounded figures):

                      20,000 in 1957
                      823,000 in 1958
                      67,000 in 1959
                      78,000 in 1960

                      = 988,000 (“one million”)

                      re: “Merdeka was not the magic wand which turned the 1,000,000 China Chinese into Malayan Chinese overnight.”

                      Merdeka was indeed the magic wand which turned the 1,000,000 non-Malays into citizens of Tanah Melayu overnight at a time when the national population was only around 6.5 million.

                      Could this have happened elsewhere? Imagine that Japan has a population of 65 million. And overnight Tokyo allowed 10 million Nigerians to become Japanese citizens.

                      re: “Far from it.”

                      It is truth based on data unless you can prove otherwise.

                      re: “This fact is to the credit of the MCA which they never bothered to capitalize politically”

                      It is the paling-tidak-apa Umno which has never bothered to capitalize on the fact that their party persuaded the Raja-Raja Melayu to agree to citizenship for the non-Malays in 1957. Our Sultans could have emulated the Sultan of Brunei and left the Chinese stateless.

                      To the “credit” or otherwise of MCA, they persuaded the China-oriented Chinese to settle down and grow roots here.

                      re: “eventually lost the political will to overpower even the poor leadership of the DAP”

                      MCA willingly colluded with the DAP. Its media empire pumped their turbo engines to campaign headily Ubah, ini kali lah for the DAP candidates in the last general election.

                      re: “The Malaysian Chinese have a real political problem now”

                      The Malaysian Chinese have, on one hand, a zombie remnant of race representative party (the assoc. with the word “Chinese” in its name) and on the other, the Yahudi Yeoh party. What they have is not a “problem” but a wish to self-destruct.

                      re: “This is why I say clowns are born every day!”

                      If they want to drink 8 bottles of J-Juice daily, then it is a diet they have chosen for themselves. So be it.

              4. Ms H. If you check the age of the MCA leadership in the 1950s you will note that they were at their peak ! I notice again that there is a lack of understanding of the what or who made up the MCA 1949-2014 ! I elaborate on this some other time !

  20. well written Helen. Very fair and objective article the truth and nothing but the truth. A true Malaysia heart and soul. Am proud of you. How we wish more and more are like you.

    Our leaders in UMNO made a mistake giving automatic citizenship to the non Malays. Australia and other countries only offer Permenant residenship without the right to vote. So is Brunei. The political scenario would have been very different!

      1. Where is there such a thing as “race” among the opposition supporters?

        Didn’t the party that 90 percent of a certain community supported in GE13 declare that they are Malaysian First and Malaysian only? Didn’t they thump their chest that they’re beyond creed and colour and that there are “no Malays, no Indians too and zero Chinese”?

        Didn’t the party that has 90 percent support from a certain community declare that MCA, like Umno, is extremist and bigoted?

        Why don’t the MCA train its guns and fight man to man with the DAP if it disagrees that the Malaysian CHINESE Association is racist as alleged by its arch rival?

        null

    1. Are you more knowledgeable than Roff, Heng and Fujio Hara?

      Some Chinese can be living here 50 years and unable to speak the national language.

      When federal minister Joseph Kurup gave a speech in Kajang during the Chew Mei Fun vs Wan Azizah by-election, his speech was translated into Chinese for the audience.

      When Malaysian Firsters get into trouble and turn to the MCA or DAP for help, they require translators too.

      Why don’t you share with us how you are personally stiving to make a btter Malaysia?

        1. If they can’t speak the national language, then what is the claim of Malaysian First all about?

          And why is DAP getting 90 percent Chinese voter support while MCA is in its death throes?

          1. I agreed they should, that is what MCA doing, along the road MCA are confronted oftenly by the stubborn fellows. How you can’t deny that they contribute to the country with their production and taxes

            1. Look, MCA has already lost 90 percent of Chinese support.

              By GE14, MCA will be abandoned by all the races including the Malays who were the voters that extended life support to the party the last election.

              MCA is effectively D-E-A-D. And it brought this fate upon itself.

              It’s better that the party stop being a nuisance and getting in the way.

              1. You don’t understand, MCA was suffering because agreeable to the national policies spearheaded by UMNO, and yet many UMNO supporters are not thankful to that effect

                  1. No, you don’t know how DAP are cheating local Chineses, as you don’t read the statements of DAP written in Chinese and published on Chinese newspapers, and you might not listen to their public speeches in Mandarin。

                    1. It’s not my job as a solo blogger to monitor the DAP and check their activities when they “cheat” (your allegation) the Chinese. It is the MCA’s job.

                      MCA has got hundreds of staff, including those in its Media Unit, based at Wisma MCA alone. There must be thousands of MCA employees in the party offices throughout the country.

                      Also MCA is owner of the Star Media group which is a multi-billion ringgit business (print, magazine, radio stations, online and online Star TV) with thousands of reporters and editorial personnel. They should be the ones reading the DAP statements written in Chinese and the speeches of the DAP leaders in Mandarin, and to counter the “cheating” being carried out by the DAP.

                      Since the DAP has obtained the wholehearted support of the Chinese whereas the MCA is rejected and scorned, then obviously MCA is a big, fat failure.

                      MCA should get out of the way. It is no help to the BN but only a hindrance.

                1. MCA yang tak sedar diri. Malas tak mau buat kerja dengan ikhlas. Awal2 dok menipu diri sendiri. Bila kalah salahkan UMNO banyak cantik lu punya muka. Lu apek zero faults meh???

                  1. Masakan tak tau the tsunami is approaching? Impossible, tak masuk akal and I don’t beleive this one bit.

                    Tau tak kalo ada operasi tangkap pendatang 15km away, the Apek shops around my area banyak suddenly shuts their shutters with a ‘close’ for the day sign quickly tampal kat pintu depan. They are very alert and well informed.. they spread news among their community like fire!

                    I don’t trust MCA la. DSN macam bela tikus dalam tempayan beras… Tengok le, bila pi nak ambik beras nanti satu tempayan licin wan!

                    1. ‘DSN macam bela tikus dalam tempayan beras… Tengok le, bila pi nak ambik beras nanti satu tempayan licin wan!’

                      PM kita mana tau pepatah Melayu semua, dulu dia belajar overseas tapi balik jadi Cina, sebab tu la dia suka bela tikus dalam tempayan beras, sebab beras bukan dia punya!!!

                      Ada orang cerita dulu masa Ah Jib Gor baru balik overseas cakap ngan orang kampung pelat bukan main!

    1. If you don’t even have an iota of knowledge to begin with, what do you base your notion of truth on?

  21. Even a very strong team of pro-BN and pro-UMNO could lost Selangor and many state seats to the PR liars, why you pick MCA to blame for ?

    We are not doing our works to build up the team. I am not MCA members, my advice to them gone to deaf ears because they believed of their card on service records.

    Admit that, you don’t read Chinese newspapers and forums on the Web, so please don’t claim to be understand the Chinese mind and judge the hero by basing on the battling result.

    1. We are not doing our works to build up the themX –> (correction) We are doing our works to build up the team.

        1. islam1st,

          This MCA burung Tiong thinks he is above the PM because he is a Chinese. He has no shame whatsoever. How many seats MCA got in GE 13?

          Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, a Minister in PMO had stated that the cabinet has no intention to repeal the Sedition Act or to replace it with another act. This Tiong guy must be in cohoots with DAP because they think alike.

          MCA and DAP 2×5 and we the Malays don’t see the difference!

    2. re: “my advice to them gone to deaf ears”

      If your advice to the MCA has fallen on deaf ears, then let the party pandai-pandai jaga diri.

      re: “so please don’t claim to be understand the Chinese mind”

      The issue is not whether I understand their mind or not. I’m more than willing to confess that I can’t for the world understand how people can be so repulsive in their behaviour, for example, the slander and smear campaign that they carried out against Chew Mei Fun.

      And it is the DAP supporters own big problem if they cannot be understood by the rest of Malaysia who think that they’re repulsive.

    3. re: “my advice to them gone to deaf ears”

      If your advice to the MCA has fallen on deaf ears, then let the party pandai-pandai jaga diri.

      re: “so please don’t claim to be understand the Chinese mind”

      The issue is not whether I understand their mind or not. I’m more than willing to confess that I can’t for the world understand how people can be so repulsive in their behaviour, for example, the slander and smear campaign that they carried out against Chew Mei Fun.

      And it is the DAP supporters own big problem if they cannot be understood by the rest of Malaysia who think that they’re repulsive.

          1. I am talking about you, not your parent. I don’t want to be condemned that I am insulting your parent, eg, not equip you with proper education on Chinese language. You are the one dragging in your parent in this dispute, not me.

            There was an agreement between Dong Jiao Zong over the Chinese Education, however, the previous government officials had broken the agreement. MCA to this regard, is tired of mediating the issue. Some members had given up and switching their support to DAP.

            Your standpoint might be totally giving up the Chinese education so that the environment favor you and other Er Mao Zhi (二毛子, the local Chinese who totally not speaking Mandarin, and can’t read it too)

            I agreed, just like many Malay, that local Chinese should not demand too much. However, whatever promised to the local Chinese educationists, should be fulfilled instead of ignoring it.

          2. Your conversation with this Roy chap basically centered on 2 issues. Race. Language. What is revealing for all to see is that you didn’t invoke the issues, he did.

            Then the whole conversation took on a predictable course. He can’t defend the indefensible so more issues came about, like for instance Chinese allegedly paying more taxes and the accusation that you do not understand the psychology of the Chinese.

            Man you just gotta love this Roy chap.

              1. We’re discussing here the period of Perjanjian Tanah Melayu 1948, which is the basis for the Perjanjian Tanah Melayu 1957 and the consequent Merdeka citizenships as per the title of this blog posting.

                I cited the late professor emeritus Roff of Columbia University (New York), asst prof Heng of the American University (Washington DC) and prof Fujio Hara of Nanzan University (Nagoya, Japan) on their studies. Please don’t accuse them of bias – “history is written by the winners” you’ve said – okay, because they are not Malay.

                I quoted passages from their book/papers. I even scanned the relevant page of the book and provided the urls to their paper pdf.

                I’ve cited the 1899 FMS enactment on Chinese affairs (together with scans), the Atlantic Charter (which I’ve linked), population figures and election results. Everything I’ve written on this page is either backed up or data which you can double check for yourself.

                Refute these facts and figures if you care to argue with any credibility. I do not claim in my own name to be any expert.

                But what do you do instead?

                You have never even met me or spoken to me but you make all kinds of the personal attacks, assumptions and presumptions against me as can be seen throughout this thread. What kind of people are you?

        1. but most “chinese” that involve in merdeka n politics dun read chinese, in fact most of them r baba. the only regret is in the eyes of umno, baba no diff with chinese, that is y u read the many today baba (or nyonya) frustration, n hatred.

          the chinese educated chinese must recognise the fact that it is the english educated chinese (二毛子)that r always doing the lead in almost every aspect, include citizenship. i dun know how many at that time celebrate roc national day, but i do know culturally n historically, chinese (not the western educated) care very less of politics, that is y we have the mentality “The mountains are high and the emperor is far away 山高皇帝远”.

          umno know the game of inclusiveness n neutralise well, they work along with the baba is part of their strategy to neutralise, but a baba name lky dun buy this. so u see the wisdom of umno n baba?

          1. You singled out the English educated for their active involvement in politics yet your Chinese educated people are the ones who are solidly backing these people. How ironic.

            If you say the Chinese educated care less of politics, then why are they so insistent on preserving vernacular medium schools? Without political representation these vernacular schools would have long gone. So much for ‘care less of politics’.

            The truth is, these Chinese educated people care about politics much more than we think. But of course with the English educated people doing the spearheading the Chinese educated can take a back seat while playing the political game subtly and when things go wrong blame the Anglophiles.

            The thing with Anglophiles is, they don’t hide when confronted while the Chinese educated, when they create a problem, make issues out of nothing, when these issues are brought to the fore, blame others.

            1. yr eng is good but yr reading skill is soso. read ed listed chinese leader before n during the merdeka period, most r eng educated, including lky. the chinese educated at that time were “coolies”, n “transient”, n celebrate oct 10 according to historian.

              perhaps u r the right person to refute helen article n proof to her that the chinese educated chinese heart at that time is with malaya, not china.

              1. You still continued to lie. How long are you going to lie? I never said the Chinese leaders of the Merdeka years were not English educated. Those leaders were well known as English educated.

                The coolies, now are you going to keep on denying that the Chinese who came to Malaya were not coolies brought by the English? You talked about reading skill…. on the contrary your reading skill is below average.

                Now I m going to ask you one more time. If politics is not that important to the vernacular educated people, why the need to continue to seek political representation through the ballot box?

                I doubt you’re going to answer my question and even if you do, I expect yet another attempt to divert the topic. That’s typical of people like you. Denial and diversion.

              2. There is nothing wrong with the Jew’s reading skill. You’re the problem. You can’t answer what’s being asked so the only way out for you is to question someone’s reading skill.

                There is nothing wrong with Helen’s response either. As one particular reader wrote in response to another article, and I m going to highlight it here

                C72 September 12, 2014 at 4.52pm

                ‘Existential angst of the majority Chinese due to inability to balance and reconcile between national engagement and maintaining cultural identity; insufficient mental capacity and emotional maturity to hold both concepts in tandem – eschewing both to embrace a simplistic materialistic creed that is alien to our ancestral philosophy.

                Still caught in survival & fight model, unable to transition to adapt & thrive sensibility. This is the cultivation failure of the Xin Jia group. They brought this onto themselves but blame others for their lack of progress.’

                That’s what is left of people like you.

              3. have you not been paying any attention whatsoever? did i say u said the Chinese leaders of the Merdeka years were not English educated, did i ever deny anything?

                my question remain, if the chinese (chinese ed) were transient, y would they want to involve actively in malaya politics? lu ada answer ke tadak?

                n pray tell b4 n during merdeka, how the vernacular educated people seek political representation through the ballot box? itu da tahun 80an.

                at least roy wong can comprehand simple eng.

    4. Who cares about whether DAP is duping the local Chinese or it’s not really MCA’s fault. The results speak loud enough for us.

      1. Chinese votes in GE13 swung hard to Opposition side.
      87% Chinese voters came out to vote, the highest turnout ever. Who galvanised them? What made them come all the way home from their overseas domains? 95% of them went to the other side. If it’s not MCA’s fault, then whose? DAP? Because DAP ran a smarter campaign to dupe the voters which MCA was too blind or not smart enough to counter?

      2. The Star is MCA’s newspaper, yet how come its noises sound similar to those of the Opposition? Are you trying to win back the Chinese by being whiter than white? Yet, by your own admission, how could out-DAP-in the DAP work, when the voters could still see that you have UMNO behind you? What will you do then, break away from BN to stand on your own, and then form a unity government with BN if/when you do win?

      1. As usual your inferiority complex is showing. But that’s understandable. After all you’re descended from among the coolies brought to Malaya by the British. But as usual you will deny the fact that the majority of Chinese are descended from coolies. In fact, in your so called correct history, no coolies were brought to Malaya by the British colonialists.

Comments are closed.