Malaysia now denied that they were British Colony, So SGP was the ONLY SUCKER?

[tun_dr_m]

SGP was the only sucker ruled by Ang Moh? Malaysian now deny that they had been ruled by Ang Moh OK?



http://www.mmail.com.my/content/82014-being-frank-mr-white-did-you-lie

Being Frank: Mr White, did you lie?
Frankie D'Cruz
Monday, September 12th, 2011 12:45:00
Malaysia

IN a sea of whining mediocrity comes ‘hard truths’ — so pure you’d collapse if you snorted it.

More so, if it involved the core of our nation’s history.

I am still wobbling in shock over the row that early Malaya was never colonised by the British. It questions our fight for independence.

It’s a dispute we least need at the moment when the nation is attempting to glue together a multiethnic populace.

A quarrel we can do without unless the source for the uneasiness, the National Council of Professors, can factually substantiate its claims.

So far, its arguments have been shallow and I don’t see the learned council presenting a case against colonisation by the British.

The remarks by the scholarly council claiming the British never colonised Malaya was not what history taught us.

The council says the British introduced a system of indirect rule in Malaya which in practical terms could be
translated as — they ran the country.

That would effectively mean we were colonised.

Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling, in representing the council, said in a statement recently that Malaya had never been colonised by the British prior to Merdeka and had only been a protectorate of the British Empire.

Zainal also disputed the notion Malaya had been under colonisation for 400 years and that although the British had then governed the country, it had remained sovereign under the Malay rulers.

Malaya, he said, was only under colonisation during the Malayan Union era between 1946 and 1948 and during the Japanese occupation.

Only three Malayan States were colonised, namely Singapore, Malacca and Penang. The rest were protected States, he said. If that was the case, I should have failed History at all levels of education. And the history of Malaysia, hardwired into my memory bank, has to be deleted.

But I am not about do that because history has it that the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 paved the way for the expansion of British influence in Malaya.

The British concluded treaties with some Malay States, installing “residents” who advised the Sultans and held power in everything except to do with Malay religion and customs.

Whether you call it a true colony or protectorates, the fact remains we were ruled by the British.

Stubbornly pushing for unnecessary change in history will drive us to a national identity disaster.

Therefore, it would be illadvised to pursue the plan by Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Khaled Nordin for the history syllabus for schools to be revised following supposed new findings of the nation's past. Such an exercise would be flawed.

Just ask the British. See if Britain agrees that the British Empire never covered the whole of Malaya.

Imagine a nation where the elders and the younger generation have different takes about the British in Malaya and our fight for independence.

Clearly, the stand by the council of professors has far-reaching social and academic implications that can affect national unity and raise questions about celebrating Merdeka every Aug 31 since 1957.

Foot-in-mouth, evidently, kicks both ways. Changing the historical course of a nation arbitrarily creates uncertainty among its people who have long held in high esteem the efforts of freedom fighters to free our nation from white rule.

Malaysia must not be seen as willing to blur its identity. Malaysians must refrain from shredding legacy at every turn.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr White, the Brit, took us all for a ride!
Dial 01...for $$ pain

I WONDER if the current debate over the six per cent service tax for reloads and starter packs from Thursday bears down on populist economics or astute economics.

Almost everyone has a problem with services provided by telecommunications companies. Such complaints
top the number of complaints The Malay Mail’s Hotline receives daily.

So, you can’t really fault the growing dissent against the move by telcos to charge prepaid consumers the six per cent service tax especially with the rising cost of living. The reality, however, is telcos just like other service providers are entitled by law to impose the six per cent tax.

We must agree that once that has been decided, its implementation should be without exemption or exclusion. They are making money in a very spirited market exploiting broadly on the decreasing cost of technology and innovation.

To impose the six per cent service tax is the government's decision, whether to absorb it or to let the customer pay for it is for the telcos to decide.

They do not have to get the approval of the government.

So, the question about the low-income group, students and those without fixed income — the target groups under the telcos’ prepaid plan — being excluded from paying service tax does not arise.

There is nothing to stop the rich from getting a prepaid card, is there?

Think subsidies: far too many classes of people enjoy it and it’s not effectual; it leads to corruption and unequal benefits and extra costs of managing these.

The six per cent service tax is not new and had been absorbed by telcos since it was introduced in 1998.

While other service providers have passed on the service tax to consumers, telcos were more considerate towards the consumers and absorbed it for a while.

Telcos have said the service tax is a consumption tax and chargeable to the customer as provided for in the service tax laws.

The Service Tax Act 1975 requires telecommunication companies to levy servicem tax at the prevailing rate on telecommunication services, including mobile prepaid services.

This is similar to the service tax levied on food and beverage purchases from restaurants and hotels.

But telcos decided to pass it on to the consumers.

I am not justifying their reasons to impose the service tax but rather trying to make a case that for consumers to absorb the additional charges, it is imperative for telcos to upgrade services before slapping the tax on consumers.

First, telcos must stop forfeiting the balance in the account of a mobile phone prepaid user if he failed to reload within the validity period.

A prepaid number should have a lifetime validity and be activated at the customers’ convenience.

Then, there is the call block system whereby telcos pocket extras from prepaid users on unused seconds.

To be sure, mobile phone prepaid users face the brunt of unfair terms imposed on them.

So, without an improvement in services, any promise of free calls after the tax had been imposed would not be of any benefit.

The sorry part to all this is the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission had been involved in the discussions with telcos since April and had agreed to the tax being imposed.

And this is the same agency that has been entrusted by the government to convince the telcos to reconsider the service tax as a collective group, seeing as how the initial decision was also a collective decision.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a pile of washing to do and my bathroom needs wiping.

 

[tun_dr_m]

http://aliran.com/6673.html

Toying with history again in Malaysia
By Aliran, on 12 September 2011
[Translate]
email
print
Digg Digg

Farish A Noor advises the scholars who claimed that British Malaya was never truly a colonial construct to take a trip to the library.

In all honesty, I really have many other things to do than waste my time commenting on what has to be one of the most inane and counter-productive debates in Malaysian politics today. Yet as the tide of silliness gains strength all around us, I feel it necessary to add my two-sen’s worth to this debate before I get back to my real work which happens to be teaching and research, so here it goes…

It appears that some academics in Malaysia now claim that Malaya (as it was then called) was never colonised by the British after all — or at least that the Malay kingdoms were never colonies in the fullest sense of the word, but rather protectorates. This is, literally, correct and it has to be said that the legal-political status of these states was precisely that: protectorates rather than colonies. But we need to raise some crucial questions at this point in order to flesh out the debate a little further, and try to understand how and why such an arrangement came about in the first place.

Firstly, it ought to be noted that the use of the term “protectorate” rather than “colony” offered (then, in the 19th century) a fig-leaf of respectability to what can only be described as a mad scramble for power and domination by the British who were not satisfied with the acquisition of their outright colonies in Penang, Dindings, Malacca and Singapore. By the 1870s, members of the British mercantile community in the colonies were demanding more British intervention into the Malay kingdoms so that the British could have direct access to the tin ore and fertile land for rubber and palm oil production. Simply put, Penang, Malacca and Singapore were too small for their own capital investment and market concerns, and they wished to have more control over resources in the Malay kingdoms. To this end, the so-called “Forward Movement” policy was devised to facilitate British colonial intervention into the Malay lands.

By the time the British — through means both fair and foul — gained control over the kingdoms of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, they instituted new treaties that placed the Malay Rulers at a tremendous disadvantage. It has to be remembered that before this the Malay kingdoms were independent sovereign states in their own right, and each kingdom was in fact its own country with its own government, economy, courts of law, etc. All of this was eroded by the British whose mode of indirect rule meant the introduction of the office of the colonial Resident, whose role and status was that of the de facto administrator of the states; and the Malay Rulers were coerced (often at the point of a gun or cannon) to concede control to the British in matters political and economic.

With the arrival of the British in Pahang and the installation of a Resident (John Pickersgill Rodger[1]) at the court in Pekan in 1888, Pahang was “opened up” to the outside world — though the only foreign capital that was henceforth welcomed in the state was British, and not other European capital. British ships began to dock at the ports of Pahang and a bi-weekly ferry service was introduced that brought with it a regular mail service as well. British commercial investments were initially focused on gold and tin mining — both of which required the mapping of the territory as well as the importation of manual labour. Coming just a year after the British had installed Sultan Idris Shah as the new British-backed Ruler of Perak (after having defeated Sultan Abdullah and sent him into exile), the turn of events in Pahang in 1888 signalled that Sultan Ahmad Shah’s days as the Ruler of Pahang were effectively over.

As in the Pangkor Treaty that was signed by Sultan Abdullah of Perak with the British, the 1888 treaty between Pahang and the British meant that henceforth Sultan Ahmad al-Mu’azzam Shah would be forced to accept the presence of a colonial Resident appointed to the court of Pekan, and Pahang’s affairs would come under the auspices of the colonial office based in Singapore. Pahang was forced to open itself up to foreign capital and to accept the currency of the Straits Settlements as well, according to the terms of the Pahang treaty — which also stipulated that henceforth the Sultan of Pahang was not even allowed to enter into diplomatic relations with any other state without prior approval from the British government

The terms of the 1888 treaty between Pahang and the British made it abundantly clear that the latter were about to gain command over the territory and economy of the former. Act 1 of the treaty bound Pahang to the other British states, compelling it to come to their defence when requested to do so. Act 2 of the treaty stated that “His Highness the Raja of Pahang undertakes if requested by the government of the Straits Settlements to co-operate in making arrangements for facilitating trade and transit communication overland through the state of Pahang with the state of Johore and other neighbouring states”, while Act 3 stated that “if the government of the Straits Settlements shall at any time desire to appoint a British officer as Agent to live within the state of Pahang having functions similar to those of a Consular Officer, His Highness the Raja will be prepared to provide free of cost a suitable site within his territory whereon a residence may be erected for occupation by such officer”.

Act 4 stipulated that the currency of the Straits Settlements will be in use in Pahang, and that henceforth the mint of Pahang would not be allowed to produce coinage and other currency without following the limitations set by the government of the Straits Settlements, while Act 5 noted that “the Governor of the Straits Settlements will at all times to the utmost of his power take whatever steps necessary to protect the government and territory of Pahang from external hostile attacks”, and in so doing demanded the same co-operation from the Ruler of Pahang.

Crucially, Act 6 of the treaty made it clear that “the Raja of Pahang undertakes on his part that he will not, without the knowledge and consent of Her Majesty’s government, negotiate any treaty or enter into any engagement with any foreign state”, or “interfere in the politics of administration of any native state”. The same Act further added that “it is further agreed that if occasion should arise for political correspondence between His Highness the Raja and any foreign state, such correspondence shall be conducted through Her Majesty’s government, to whom His Highness makes over the guidance and control of his foreign relations”.

Act 6 thus effectively robbed Sultan Ahmad and any of the future Rulers of Pahang of the right to engage in any diplomatic relations with any other Malay or European kingdom. [Re:Treaties and Other Papers connected with the Native states of the Malay Peninsula,Government Printing House, Singapore, 1888. pp. 42-55.]

The terms of the Pahang Treaty of 1888 and the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 were more or less the same, and they implied that henceforth the Malay Rulers of Pahang, Perak and the other Malay protectorates would be under the coercive “advice” of the British Resident who was in turn backed by British arms and military power. So while the Malay Rulers were allowed to keep their flags and banners, the real power — political and economic — was robbed of them by the British. Now tell me, how is this any different from outright colonialism? Or are we to give lip service to British colonial propaganda that claimed that this sort of intervention was done “for the good of the natives” and to bring development for the Malays?

I am baffled by the recent turn of events in Malaysia where all sorts of characters are now claiming that this charade of colonial intervention was something less than outright colonisation. To aid them in their memory (some of them are close to retirement I think, or should have retired a long time ago.), I end with a quote from Tun Dr Mahathir’s “The Malay Dilemma” (1969/1970) where Mahathir describes the reality of colonial governmentality then:

Practically all the import-export houses were British or at least European. These firms were protected by the (colonial) government without any need for legislation. The exclusive European clubs all over the country were the places where these protective laws were made and implemented …

This protectionism was equally comprehensive on the export side. Markets in rubber and tin for example were established by these firms in their own countries, and the markets were not open to any local (Asian) firms.

… As if government protection was not enough, the British controlled the whole of the banking business, especially the portion of it that was concerned with the financing of the import-export sector. …

… Contracts with supplies were almost exclusively through the (British) Crown agents. Local supplies, even when needed, were by contract with British firms. British officials and businessmen formed a close-knit community usually presided over by a local British Adviser or Resident.” (from: Mahathir Mohamad, “The Malay Dilemma”, 1970, pp. 48-49)

To our esteemed dons and doyens of the ivory towers who claim that British Malaya was never truly a colonial construct, I would serious advise a trip to the library, or even a conversation with Tun Dr Mahathir to sort out some of the lingering doubts about the past of the country. Malaysia’s youth may be confused enough today; the least that we — teachers — can and ought to do is to help clarify their understanding a little further; rather than muddy the already murky waters of the past with revisionist obfuscation even further — Malaysian Insider.

Notes:

[1] John Pickersgill Rodget was the first Resident appointed to Pahang in October 1888. (Gopinath, 1996, pg. 103)

Dr Farish A Noor, an Aliran member, is a Senior Fellow at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

 

[Cestbon]

Singapore is British colony. So do the Penang and Malacca base on history because under.
Half of the Malaysia state also under British rule. Where the British more powerful than Sultan. British rule and Sultan as a Puppet just like Singapore President.

 

[kingrant]

The question to ask is, was there ever a Colonial govt in Malaya? If so then it was a colony.

 

[Cestbon]

The question to ask is, was there ever a Colonial govt in Malaya? If so then it was a colony.

Please read history. Malaysia have many state not all state under British. Some is rule by British some is not,
Some there is grey area. Some have to debate state by state
One thing for sure is Johore Sultan sold Singapore to British and Kedah Sultan sold Penang to British.
Maybe by force or sold only the person who involve know that.

 

[HedgeTrader]

Singapore is British colony. So do the Penang and Malacca base on history because under.
Half of the Malaysia state also under British rule. Where the British more powerful than Sultan. British rule and Sultan as a Puppet just like Singapore President.

Good comparison. Subordinate is subordinate whether you call it colony or protectorate.

 

[1sickpuppy II]

So is it safe to say Maccau and Hk is a colony and China is not?

 

[psy83]

China was never a colony.. The only one to enter China are the Japs.. Correct me if im wrong.. I thought Malacca was under the Portuguese?

 

[tun_dr_m]

If you put SGP in the light of so called protectorate kind of perspective, then we are a Colony of USA because Lee Kuan Yew depending on US to protect his ass, so like whore he suck on the US dick forever.

 

[Windsor]

"Malaysia’s First Lady, Rosmah Mansor, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin Yassin, are currently in London where it is believed they met the British government to discuss amendments to the British distortion of history.
The documents in the National Archives in London talk about the British Colonial government of Malaya and refer to the Colonial Office. This gives the wrong impression that Malaya was a colony of Britain whereas this was not so, says Malaysia. Malaya was never colonised by Britain, argues Malaysia.
Britain responded by pointing to the fact that 31st August every year since 1957 is celebrated as Merdeka Day. This proves that Malaya was never Merdeka or independent before 31st August 1957, which means it was a colony of Britain.

If Malaysia will abolish the 31st August Merdeka Day celebration, then Britain will consider amending all the documents in the National Archives in London and will delete all references to the Colonial Office in these documents.

Furthermore, the First Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, is called Bapa Merdeka. If Malaya was never a colony of Britain then it could not have been granted Merdeka, which means Tunku Abdul Rahman can no longer be called Bapa Merdeka, Britain pointed out.

A further problem that will be raised, Britain pointed out, would be whether the Malaysian Constitution would still be valid since it was a Merdeka Constitution. This would also affect the status of the Rulers who have all been reduced to the status of Constitutional Monarchies. Power would have to be given back to the Rulers who would rule as Absolute Monarchies.

The First Lady and the Deputy Prime Minister told the media during a press conference that the matter will require further discussion and it may be in the long-term interest of the nation that Malaysia acknowledges that prior to 31st August 1957 it was a British colony after all.
The Cabinet will receive the report on Wednesday and it is expected to issue a statement asking Malaysian historians to stop arguing that Malaysia was never colonised by Britain since this raised too many questions involving other issues."

"Power would have to be given back to the Rulers who would rule as Absolute Monarchies."

The stupidity of the Malaysians knows no bounds. Now they will have to kowtow once again to the British and eat humble pie. All the big hooha from people in authority who should know better after using the British Currency before Merdeka, just to win some false sense of pride.

 

[zeddy]

Port Swetteham

Port Dickson

The Carcosa

Georgetown

Aren't all these places being named due to the British influence in Malaya back then..???

Even the Constitiution of Malaysian and its system of government is based on the British Westminster system...

And now hilariously, these Malaysians are denying the fact of true history that they were once part of the British Empire..

These Malaysians are incredulous..

 

[HedgeTrader]

So is it safe to say Maccau and Hk is a colony and China is not?

Incredible how doop mat can stoop LOL

I don't think China will say such thing. Lost was lost and was past. Win back is win back. What for argue?

 

[kingrant]

Malaysia could only be granted independence at the pleasure of the British crown. The internal state govts or the Sultans had no say over defence and Foreign Affairs. So tell me who is on top of who?

Everybody reads history but others try vainly to rewrite it. A case of "shiok sendiri", to use Scroobal's creative genius.

Please read history.

 

[kingrant]

Better still, pray tell me which states were ruled by the British and which not.

Please read history. Malaysia have many state not all state under British. Some is rule by British some is not,
Some there is grey area. Some have to debate state by state
One thing for sure is Johore Sultan sold Singapore to British and Kedah Sultan sold Penang to British.
Maybe by force or sold only the person who involve know that.

 

[Kid278]

Singapore is British colony. So do the Penang and Malacca base on history because under.
Half of the Malaysia state also under British rule. Where the British more powerful than Sultan. British rule and Sultan as a Puppet just like Singapore President.

I think Malacca was colonised twice, first by the Portugese followed by the British. Not half the malaysian state, infact the whole peninsula came under the British. Then there's also Borneo, Sabah and Sarawak. Even Brunei was also under the British when the British empire was at it's might. Since then all those sultans were reduce to puppets except the one in Brunei still a monarch.

 

[HTOLAS]

By the time the British felt they needed to exercise some control over the Straits of Melaka, they realized that directly controlling large tracts of territory unnecessarily sapped resources. As such, they would only directly control territory that was absolutely needed. In this case, Penang (at one end of the Straits), Singapore (the other end) and Melaka (the strategic centre).

The other territories in the Malay peninsula (there was no Malaya or Malaysia then) could be dealt with by a combination of administration and gunboats. These territories were after all, only seen as suppliers of natural resources such as tin, rubber and spices. The British appointed Residents to 'advise' the sultans. Like our PMO, they moved into the grounds of the palaces so that they kept an eye on the sultans. And the residents had small units of military to protect them. When trouble erupted, the British could move their gunboats (and marines) from the ports in Singapore and Penang to augment local forces wherever needed. They controlled the rest of the peninsula this way.

Residents of four states, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Perak and Pahang, formed a loose federation so that they could standardize weights and measures, railway gauges and some laws. They called themselves the Federated Malay States (FMS). If you went down to the now defunct TP railway station, you would notice the letters FMSR (FMS Railway) on the walls. Johor, Kelantan, Terengannu, Perlis, Kedah could not be 'persuaded' to join the federation.

Sabah and Sarawak were different and in many ways remain different from the other Malay states. Sarawak was the personal fiefdom of the Brooke family and Sabah was a protectorate (not colony) of variants of the East India Company after it was wrested from Brunei and Sulu.

In the sense that the British did not exercise direct control over most of what is now Malaysia, it was not a colony. This position does not recognize the reality that the British had de facto control over most of the affairs (especially external affairs) of the land, and that this control was exercised through the colonial office in London. It would appear that British deception has worked on some people who still believe they were never controlled by the British.

One last thing. After WW2, the British sought to rationalize their holdings in the Malay peninsula ahead of independence. Without going into details, this together with military occupation throughout the peninsula blurred the state lines and effectively meant that GB took direct control over all of what was to become Malaya. Colonization by another name!

 

[Wang Ye]

British Malaya end of discussion.

 

[Forvendet]

British Malaya end of discussion.

The whole West Malaysia was then known as British Malaya. Penang, Malacca and Singapore collectively known as Straits Settlements had direct British administration just like HK because there were no sultans. The other states all have sultans. They remained traditional heads of States in their respective states pledged allegiance to the British crown as the Head of the British Empire. So yes, colony or protectorate, Malaya was part of the British Empire.

Singapore was under the Sultan of Johor and Penang was under the Sultan of Kedah. Both were ceded directly to the British and thereafter, no more sultans laid claim. The Sultan of Malacca fled to Johor even earlier when Malacca lost the war to Portugal. Portugal in turn lost to Holland and Holland in turn ceded it to Britain.

 

[Cestbon]

Better still, pray tell me which states were ruled by the British and which not.

WE all know that for sure Penang, Malacca, Singapore is under British Colony. Malacca was colony by Portugese,Dutch and British.
Perak was under British because of the tin mine. Selangor, Pahang and N. Sembilan also under British colony that why is called federated state.
For Kelantan and Perlis maybe too far the British dont get involve too much.
So for Kedah and Johore because both sell off Penang and Singapore to British. So indirectly maybe there is an agreement. British will help these 2 state if attack by others colony.
Kedah remain one of the world longest Sultan/King in the world even longer than England itself.

For Borneo only Brunei have Sultan. Sultan/maonarchy in Brunei nearly cut off for some period it left without any Sultan. Sarawak and Sabah that time no ruler so it easy for any colony to set up.

So very funny now Malaysia bring up the matter of colony. I agree that Malaysia was a colony that way is under commonwealth.
We have to agree that without Japan and Germany more than half of the world will be rule by British.
Japan weaken the British in Asia. Further attack by communist that clean all the British that left.
So good or bad is up the personal opinion.