Malaysians, especially the younger generation, have the responsibility to learn history properly. Failure will just make them people without remembering, let alone understanding what happened to them the day before, last week, last month, last year, last decade and even last century (if they lived that long). The neo PUTERA-AMCJA flag they flew on the eve of Malaysians celebrated Merdeka, was about them glorifying Malayans who casted a dark period on our history.
Tuesday September 4, 2012
Blogger sparks uproar
KUALA LUMPUR: A blogger has claimed responsibility for the “new Malaysian flag” controversy, saying it was done to honour the country’s early freedom fighters.
Muhammad Nasir confessed in his blog Singaselatan, which attracted instant flak from local historians and sparked an uproar among Netizens.
Historian Tan Sri Prof Khoo Kay Kim questioned the motive of Muhammad, who said he was responsible for unveiling the flag with his friend Zairi Shafai during the Janji Demokrasi gathering at Dataran Merdeka here last Thursday.
“Do they really know the struggle of Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) and what it represented? If they are not happy with the country, they should give up their citizenship and migrate elsewhere,” Khoo said.
Prof Khoo, one of the co-authors of the Rukun Negara, said KMM was formed in 1938 for the purpose of overthrowing the then British rulers in Malaya.
He noted that a large number of KMM members were Indonesians, hence the leftist movement’s goal of forming Panji Melayu Raya or Greater Indonesia which called for the unification of Malaya and Indonesia.
Datuk Dr Ramlah Adam, the author of over 30 books on local history, questioned the group’s motive for glorifying KMM.
“They are trying to create their own version of history without really understanding the details behind KMM, which was against the Malay rulers.
“Some may treat their actions as young boys being mischievous but I worry that there may be a greater plan by the Opposition to cause disunity,” she said.
Blogger Aesheh Adlina Karim drew attention to the similarities of the group’s flag to the Singaporean and Indonesian national flags.
“Do they (Pakatan) mean to make Malaysia a republic because both Indonesia and Singapore are republics?” she asked in her blog.
Meanwhile, PKR deputy information youth chief Najwan Halimi said he modified a 1947 AMCJA-Putera leftist movement 12-star flag in 2007, adding that this flag design was mistakenly used by the group.
In being objective, a renowned and eminently respected historian Professor Khoo uttered a very strong statement to supporters of the radicals who are against what the Federation of Malaysia’s Constitution spirit and provisions, be it then or now. They tried to resurrect a failed struggle and skew our nation’s history, to fit their ongoing ‘revolution’ against the will of the majority.
In their sordid attempt as minority trying to impose themselves against the aspirations and will of the majority, just like KMM in the past, they want to glorify the leftist-turned-communists as “true heroes of Independece”, instead live with the proven successes by the right wing nationalists. However, their version of these “heroes” were never sincere.
Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) pro-actively aided the Japanese invasion in the planning and ground work that led to the landings in Kelantan on 8 December 1941.
There on, Malayans were humiliated, treated like slaves and unequivocally, suffered from atrocities and brutalities. There were communities which were massacred. Those who are spared, suffered from lack of food, medicine, dissease and even worse living conditions compared to when the British ruled. The Japanese even changed Sultans in many of the Malay states.
KMM leadership wanted Malaya’s Independence to be part of Greater Indonesia and they wanted a republic. It was against the will of the majority of Malayans, which is the Malays. The Malays then, adored the position and roles of the HRH Rulers in their socio-political system.
Post World War II, the same people then formed Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) which in the leftist and radical frame of mind supported communism. The communists, who should be known as ‘Butchers of Malaya’, also terrorized this blessed land and brutalized Malayans in their effort to gain power and control of the Tanah Melayu against the will of the majority.
Malayans live in fear and properties and infrastructure were destroyed. The Malayan economy declined. 18,000 lives were lost in the 12 years they terrorized Malaya. They were part of a movement to franchise internationally organized rebellion.
When the Japanese were defeated, the British came and had a grand plan to formalize Malay as a crown colony known as Malayan Union. The High Comminssioner convinced at Malay Rulers to sign it. That got the common Malays together and 31 Malay NGOs formed UMNO on 11 May 1946 with the consent of the Sultan of Johor, to stop the Malayan Union. As the will of the Malayans, particularly the Malays move forward along the political lines of the nationalists which is more structured, the Malayan Union failed.
The failure of Malayan Union got the British to sit down and negotiate with all HRH Rulersm where else UMNO was accorded the observer status. After a series of negotiations, the two parties signed an agreement ‘Tanah Melayu Treaty’ dated 27 January 1948 and enforced on 1 February 1948. The treaty was about laying the foundations for a full blown Federated of Malaya Constitution, some day. The most important article in the Treaty was provisions to ‘citizenship’.
The Federation of Malaya Constitution was formed based on the ‘Treaty of the Federation’ which was negotiated as a consequence to the failure and revocation of Sir Harold MacMichael’s Malayan Union, which actually came into effect with Sir Edward Gent assuming the position and role of Governor on 1 April 1946. Subsequently the British sat down in a series of meetings and negotiations with HRH Rulers and UMNO representatives were present as observers and witnesses. As a result, 0n 21 Jan 1948 the Treaty of the Federation was signed and sealed (and eventually came to force on 1 Feb 1948) by the British High Commissioner, representatives of HRH Rulers and UMNO and adopted the pre-1941 status quo.
The most important bit of the Treaty of the Federation 1 Feb 1948 is Article 12. There was a specific mention of Article 12 on citizenship, item (a) “Any subjects of HRH Malay Rulers who were born on on before the date”, (b) “Any British subjects who were born in the Strait Settlements on or before that date”, (c) “Any persons which was born on or before the date in any of the Malay States within the Federation who is practicing the Malay culture and speak the Malay language”. There was specific provision for the application to be citizens, which clearly state the requirement to be verse in Malay. No provisions for the rights of the Non Malays were mentioned.
The spirit and essence in form and substance of the ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ was preserved and enshrined in the Federation of Malaya Constitution 31 August 1957. The specific mention is best reflected in Article 153:
- It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special provision of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.
- The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.
- In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.
- This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136.
- Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable, and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
- Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorised a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation-
- (a) deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him;
- (b) authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with he other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or
- (c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorise a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorise a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.
- (8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yank di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable, and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.
- (9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
- (9A) In this Article the expression “natives” in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A.
- The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article.
‘Ketuanan Melayu’ should not be mistaken and translate on and about ‘Malay Supremacy’. ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is about ‘Malay Dominance’, especially the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawk is the majority of the citizens of this nation. The fact is that ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ which is the basis and enshrined in the Federation of Malaysia Constitution which is the Supreme Law, is about the preservation of the rights and position of the Malays as the majority of the population. However, it does not mean that the Malays have the right or authority to take what is accorded for the Non Malays like the right to vote, own properties and own businesses. ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ is never about repressing others, in spirit, form or substance.
The essence of the wisdom, fairness and goodwill of Malay Leaders led by Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra in 1956 who negotiated first with HRH Rulers (to allow for constitutional monarchy) and then with the British to unconditionally and with grace accept the near 1 million ‘stateless’ Non Malays (they were then neither subjects of HM Queen of Great Britian of United Kingdom and Eire nor any of HRH Rulers, as stipulated by the ‘Treaty of the Federation’, 1 Feb 1948) to be automatically granted citizenship of the soon to be born Federation of Malaya, must be understood, respected and most of all preserved as the single most important fundamental point and blueprint of being what Malaysia is today. That cannot be denied, changed or erased.
The DAP, which is a spin of from Singapore born PAP in 1967, vowed to fight these specific provisions for Malay Rights in the Federal Constitution as one of the thrust core in their political struggle having a Chinese Chauvinist party. Many believed that it is a platform as the political arm for Min Yuen radicals when their struggle to win support of the Chinese via armed rebellion faced the slow but almost certain death after Emergency was declared over in 1960.
DAP, which is the integral partner of the Opposition’s ‘Politics of Hatred’ strategy, is consistent about their support for the ‘Butchers of Malaya’. They carried on their ‘subversive movement’ when the Communist Party of Malaya struggle waned in the 60s via radicals, which was clearly transpired in the bloody 13 May 1969 racial riots.
Senior writer with NST thinks its about bankrupt politicians’ sordid attempt to grab attention with a ‘political mischievous’ stunt.
04 September 2012 | last updated at 08:44AM
Contentious flag raising stunt reads political mischief and crassnessBy Azmi Anshar 0 comments
SO, a couple of undergraduates — jazzed up with reverence for a post-war, pre-independence moment — chose the eve of Aug 31 to unleash a political statement teeming with so-called historical awakening.Those behind the unfurling of the ‘Sang Saka Malaya’ at Dataran Merdeka have a dubious motive for their brazen act.1 / 1
Initiated by the blogger who dubs himself Serigala Selatan (Southern Wolf), who writes at a blog called Singa Selatan (Southern Lion), and one Zairi Shafai thought that unfurling the horizontally equidistant red-white flag with a yellow crescent and 11-point star nestled on the top left corner was the enlightening way to inform people about a particular lost historical episode that demands equal billing with the 55th commemoration of Merdeka.
Sang Serigala’s idea of this symbol he calls Sang Saka Malaya, with its uncanny resemblance to the Republic of Singapore and Republic of Indonesia flags, was to re-open a long-forgotten era, the salad days of the country’s pre-war left wing political parties battling against British rule.
Sang Serigala’s unbridled (some would say misguided) youthful enthusiasm has propelled him straight into trouble with the authorities.
The poser is, why now? Why not last year? Or before March 2008? Or during the past 30 years? Why bother?
Even if the undergraduate simply stumbled upon this historical anecdote in the course of his studies, what is the compulsion to turn it into a political sideshow that has now escalated into a circus?
Sang Saka Malaya’s grandiloquence would have a relevant point in History books, maybe a lecture by a professor or a forum by historical societies, but their in-your-face aggressive assault at Dataran Merdeka on the Malaysian sensibility exposes a dubious motive.
The flag bearers quickly denied any political association while opposition parties reportedly did not want anything to do with the flag bearing stunt, claiming also to have no inkling to the posts that made its way to the blogosphere that accused them of wanting to replace the Jalur Gemilang.
However, their denials seemed shallow and deceptive. Utusan Malaysia is nailing PKR Youth’s deputy publicity chief Najwan Halimi as the designer of the Sang Saka Malaya, based on an article he posted in 2009 that contended a tenuous notion — Malaysians were reluctant to raise the national flag because the Jalur Gemilang was adapted from the Stars and Stripes, the national flag of the United States of America.
After half-a-century’s worth of water under the bridge, where the Jalur Gemilang has been the official flag flown in official buildings and in Malaysian embassies and high commissions, and waved in march-pasts at the Olympics and prided in just about everywhere Malaysians won prizes and clocked up achievements (including the tip of Mount Everest and the expanse of Antarctica), there are still misgivings about the national flag? That another flag of a distant past should stand side by side?
This political caper, masked as a symbolic gesture to cast aspersion on the verity of the Jalur Gemilang, is not historical revisionism or a cry to reclaim what had faded into a distant timeline. It is plain mischief.
Opposition leaders like to pontificate that they have nothing to do with this sort of mischief but they have done little to discourage its incurrence.
Just like the mischief fired by DAP assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah M. Manoharan, a lawyer of such crassitude that he committed an unforgiveable faux pas last year, after he threatened to change the Jalur Gemilang if Pakatan Rakyat conquers Putrajaya (let’s not get into a hissy fit over Manoharan’s unbelievable twits that insulted silver Olympic medallist Datuk Lee Chong Wei).
Manoharan was roundly and rightly condemned as an “unpatriotic idiot”, even by his party leadership who slapped a six-month ban, which was surprisingly mitigated to a “severe reprimand” after he was forced to apologise. There you are.
The flag’s unfurling might be considered as a risqué pursuit on any other day or year, but with the general election looming, the opposition, which is steadily losing points on a daily basis, have to perform political alchemy to recover that sagging support as it hits rock bottom.
Devising this particular mischievous political gambit undoubtedly makes for great newsbytes: newspapers, websites and blogs are already crackling in outrage but think this one out, it might have been manipulated to help turn the tide.
But also consider the other plausible motive of unfurling that wretched flag: it is the boys’ quick route to infamy and stardom, a cynical marketing gimmick to rake in the hits by applying the timeless tactic of crass controversy.
Actually, its not. It is an extension to the Opposition’s strategy of ‘Politics of Hate’ and ‘Politics of Hatred’, which in the past transgressed via attempts to create anarchy. It is the premise of their politics. Infact ‘Janji Bersih’ was all along designed to create anarchy chain reaction towards the ‘Malaysian Spring’.
The Oppositions have been dwelling, planning and even openly talking about it. They are nothing but Neo Min Yuens.
In the past fourteen years, we have seen how Oppositions’ sordid agenda ‘Politics of Hatred’ and demonisation of any law enforcement agencies and the authorities, even though it is within the provisions in the Federal Constitution. Particularly, Anwar Ibrahim’s ability to stir up sentiments and emotions which from time to time sent Malaysian youths into stunts without them understanding that they were made used as a bunch of anarchists, if not gorillas. Their lawlessness is really shameful and simply anti constitutional.
Some believed that the Oppostions have things to hide. Needless to mention, they have been consistent in their insults to the symbols of this nation.
For these monkeys who got sucked into this sordid game by politicians who will never get the support and mandate from the majority of Malaysians, please make the effort to learn and understand who did what, when and how, for this land to achieve the independence as we all know it, on 31 August 1957. Their gross lack of understanding of their own history is actually pathetically beyond redemption, where George Santayana’s immortal words on being condemned for repeating past mistakes, no longer apply.
Otherwise, they would be parroting a perpetuated lie. It is just like bastards who all the while thought their parents were married.