17 Apr, 2009
The British were superb diplomats. And they understood the meaning of ‘gunboat diplomacy’. Would you argue with a Kwailo whom had twenty large ships with big cannons anchored in your harbour?
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Dr M: The young needs to be taught country’s history
Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today the young generations, especially the independence generations, should be taught the country’s history to ensure that they do not repeat past mistakes.
“I’m pleading for the teaching of history,” he said, adding that an American philosopher, George Santayana, once said: “Those who forget the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat their mistakes over and over again” or words to that effect.
“How do we know we are not repeating our mistakes now if we do not know of our mistakes in the past. We need to know. We need to know how we came to be colonised. We need to know how we barely managed to escape from being a communist state.
“We need to know how our rulers were forced to surrender their states to the British. We need to know how the British were forced to rescind the MacMichael treaties,” he said in his blog www.chedet.cc on the topic of “The Generation Gap” today.
He said that with most of Malaysia’s 27 million population being born after 1957 to 1963, it meant that “they had not known anything but being free, being independent, being ruled by their fellow countrymen.”
Stating that he was not trying to say that those who lived under colonial rule are more appreciative of independence, he said: “What we should all be concerned with is that we appreciate our independence and our freedom more, whatever may be our political leanings.”
“But I think we should know where we came from. Otherwise we would not know which way we should go. We may think we are going forward when in fact we are going backward, back to where we started. We would not be making progress,” he said. — Bernama
THE GENERATION GAP
By Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
1. When in 1957 we became independent the population was only five million. Even after 1963 when Sabah and Sarawak joined the Peninsula to form Malaysia the population was only slightly more than six million.
2. Today, Malaysia's population is 27 million. Obviously most Malaysians were born after 1957-1963. Meaning to say they had not known anything but being free, being independent, being ruled by their fellow countrymen.
3. History is not a compulsory subject in our schools. If at all history is taught it is sketchy, not really giving a clear picture of what it was like to be ruled by foreigners, by the British, the Japanese and in some cases the Thais.
4. I am not trying to say that those who lived under colonial rule are more appreciative of independence, although that is basically true. But what we should all be concerned with is that we appreciate our independence and our freedom more, whatever may be our political leanings.
5. Is it wrong for us to look back on the past? Some think it is irrelevant. That was before; this is now. Don't tell us all those stories about the struggles of people gone by. We have always been independent. All our life we have been independent.
6. But I think we should know where we came from. Otherwise we would not know which way we should go. We may think we are going forward when in fact we are going backward, back to where we started. We would not be making progress.
7. I am pleading for the teaching of history. George Santayana, an American philosopher once said; "Those who forget the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat their mistakes over and over again", or words to that effect.
8. How do we know we are not repeating our mistakes now if we do not know of our mistakes in the past? We need to know.
9. We need to know how we came to be colonised. We need to know how we barely managed to escape from being a Communist state.
10. We need to know how our Rulers were forced to surrender their states to the British. We need to know how the British were forced to rescind the MacMichael treaties. And so on and so forth.
11. Somewhere along we would recognise the mistakes we had made. And knowing them we would be better able to avoid making them again. Our country would continue to grow and prosper.
12. The independent generations have enjoyed the independent country they inherited.
13. Surely they would want their children and grandchildren to inherit the same.
14. And this they can ensure by knowing the history of this beloved country and the mistakes of the past.
In response to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s call that Malaysian children should be taught history, (in fact, even adults do not know Malaysian history), I am going to walk you through a short history lesson.
First of all, Malaya was not a British Colony in the real sense of the word. The Sultans ruled the many Malay states and the British presence here was mainly through a business enterprise called the East India Company. It was actually a British trading post rather than the British government setting up shop in Malaya.
Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis were Thai vassals and they paid the annual ‘bunga emas’ (golden flower) to the Thai king as an act of submission to Thailand. Even Perak came under the protection of Thailand. One day, when Perak came under attack from one of my ancestors of the famous Five Bugis Brothers fame, Thailand sent its army on elephants to drive the Bugis out. The same went for Kedah where Thailand defended the state against the Bugis and killed one of the Five Bugis Brothers.
Selangor, in turn, was a Perak vassal of sorts. The First Sultan of Selangor was installed by the Sultan of Perak in Lumut. You could say that Selangor was ‘created’ by Perak and came under indirect Perak ‘rule’. At that time Selangor had no Sultan and was not really owned by anyone so Perak sort of ‘looked over’ Selangor’s interests. (Now do you know why the Selangor Palace is angry that I acted in a ‘treasonous’ manner against the Sultan of Perak?)
There was no country called Malaya then, and for sure there was no country called Malaysia yet. There were many independent Malay states that were ruled by Sultans. The British came in to the Malay states to do business through a company called the East India Company -- and with them came the private army that was paid for by the company to protect its business interests (just like the private guards that most companies hire today). The Chinese too came in to work the tin mines -- and with them came the secret societies that enforced ‘Chinese clan laws’ on the Chinese community. That’s when the Malay states began to see turmoil in the form of Chinese clan wars that fought each other for control over the businesses.
When things got out of control, the British private armies stepped in to end the wars and to restore peace. But they did this only when British business interests were under threat. If Malays killed Malays or Chinese killed Chinese or the Malays and Chinese killed each other, as long as it did not affect British business interests, the British very much left them alone to wipe each other off.
Eventually, the British decided that the Sultans needed to be ‘guided’. The Malay states were becoming quite chaotic. There were fights breaking out everywhere. In some of these Chinese wars the Malays were now getting involved because the Malays and Chinese were in partnership, especially in the tin mine business, so the Malays and Chinese were now in alliance against the ‘other side’, which was again a Malay-Chinese partnership. In short, the wars were no longer Chinese versus Chinese. It was Malay-Chinese versus Malay-Chinese. And it was not about ideology or politics. It was about fighting over control of the business interests.
Within the palace there were also fights over succession to the throne because whoever sat on the throne would control the tin mines and would be the new Chinese partners. The Chinese did not care who sat on the throne though. They just worked with whoever happened to be sitting on the throne as long as they made money. (Now do you know why the Chinese will support Barisan Nasional as long as Barisan Nasional controls all the business?) The British, however, very cleverly supported the ‘losers’ so that those on the throne could be ousted and the claimant to the throne could be installed as the new Sultan.
So, many Sultans were ousted. Some were ousted even while still just the Raja Muda and before they became the Sultan (like in Selangor) so that when the existing Sultan dies the new Sultan would be ‘their boy’. (Isn’t this what Umno also did in some states like Negeri Sembilan, etc?)
In short, wherever possible, the British marched up to the palace with their guns and cannons to force the Sultans to accept ‘British Advisers’. If the Sultans resisted, they would be forced off the throne and replaced him with a younger brother who, after becoming the Sultan, would agree to appoint a British Adviser to the Royal Court. In some cases, the Sultans were forced to sack the Raja Muda and to replace him with a younger brother who already made a deal with the British that when he takes the throne he would accept a British Adviser.
And where were the Malays or Umno when all this happened in the 1800s and early 1900s? Did the Melayu ‘bangun’ and resist the British? Did they defend their ‘maruah Melayu’? Did the Malays or Umno take out their little keris and face the British cannons and fight to the death? Or did the Malays put on British uniforms and go work for the British and call the ‘Tuan’?
In fact, when Tok Janggut of Kelantan opposed the British, it was Malay policemen who arrested him and put him to death and hung his body to rot along the banks of the Kelantan River (see the two pictures below).
The Malays actually worked for the British and helped kill the real Malay warriors who resisted the British. And many members of the Royal Family were killed or sent into exile for opposing the British (my grandfather, Sultan Musa, being one of them).
That is the real history of the Malay resistance movement, not the story that Umno is spinning. The Sultans were not traitors to the Malays who sold out the country to the British. Just like how the British took China and India by force, that is also what happened in the Malay states before this country transformed into the Federation of Malaya.
That brings us to one crucial argument. If Malaya was not really a British Colony in the true sense of the word, then how could it have obtained Merdeka? Was that so-called Merdeka just a grand feel-good show put on for the sake of the gullible country folk?
This is something even renowned historians can’t seem to agree on.
Anyway, back to the issue. If the Sultans were the authority in the states, then this means the British was not really the government. Is that why the British acted as advisers and were called such, Advisers?
Of course, when you have the army behind you, you can ‘advise’ those with no army and they would listen to your ‘advice’ -- the way the Agong (and Sultans), today, listens to the ‘advice’ of the Prime Minister and has no choice but to agree to this ‘advice’. That would be the same case when it comes to the Loong Foo Tong or Sap Pat Loh Hon who, because of their ‘army’, the people, including the village headman or penghulu, would listen to their advice.
In short, the British were gangsters just like the Loong Foo Tong or Sap Pat Loh Hon and they had the power to ‘advice’ because they had a strong military force. Might is right, as they say. And is this not also so today in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc?
The British demonstrated the power of money. (The Thais say: no money, no honey). And this money bought them an army and with their army they could tell the Sultans (and the Indian Rajas and Chinese Emperors as well) what to do and what not to do.
The British were superb diplomats. And they understood the meaning of ‘gunboat diplomacy’. Would you argue with a Kwailo whom had twenty large ships with big cannons anchored in your harbour?
The British just told the Sultans: show me yours and I will show you mine. And the one with the biggest calls the shots. Invariably, the Kwailo’s were bigger than the Sultans’ (I mean their cannons of course).
That was basically it. It was not about the Sultans ‘selling out’’, as what Umno is fond of saying. It was about a group of heavily armed men coming to your home and aiming their huge cannons at your throat and saying: your money or your wife. I would keep my money and let them take my wife of course. But then this was not up to me to decide, as I was not even born yet at that time.
Yes, let us learn, or relearn, history. But let it be the correct version of history. True, the Sultans let us down by allowing the British to come into this country and act as their ‘Advisers’. But did the Malays resist the move? No, the Malays just bowed and called the British ‘Tuan’ and acted as ‘boys’ and ‘syces’ to the Kwailo Tuans and Mems.
Come on. Stop grumbling. And stop blaming the Sultans. Sure, the Sultans did not resist the British. It would have been impossible to resist the British without guns and cannons. But then neither did the Malays. And what can one Sultan and his 25 wives do against the dozens of British gunboats manned by armed and desperate sailors who have not seen real women for nine months and their only gratification being the 16-year old cabin boy dressed in his sister’s red dress?
I had written a few days ago about my grandfather, Sultan Musa of Selangor, who tried to resist the British and was sent into exile in the Cocos Islands. I don’t remember Umno coming to his defence then. You think the other Sultans would dare resist the British after that when they realise that the Malays would stand by and do nothing?
The East India Company (also the East India Trading Company, English East India Company, and then the British East India Company) was an early English joint-stock company that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies, but that ended up trading with the Indian subcontinent and China. The oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies, the Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600.
After a rival English company challenged its monopoly in the late 17th century, the two companies were merged in 1708 to form the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly styled the Honourable East India Company, and abbreviated, HEIC; the Company was colloquially referred to as John Company, and in India as Company Bahadur ("bahādur": Hindustani, lit. "brave").
The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, tea, and opium. However, it also came to rule large swathes of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits. Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858, when, following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and under the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act.
The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the English, and later the British, government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company's position. Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for over 250 years.
From Wikipedia
No comments:
Post a Comment