With Thanks
Malaysiakini
The British had introduced a system of indirect rule in Malaysia unlike in India, but in reality the presence of residents and later British high commissioners as ‘advisors’, showed we were colonised.International Islamic University Malaysia law professor Abdul Aziz Bari asked if Malaysia was not colonised, then why do we celebrate our independence every year since 1957? He said according to international law concepts there were differences between colonies and protectorates or protected states, which may not be clearly seen.
“Such differences may not be obvious to the man in the street. What is the difference between Malacca and Penang as straits settlements to Malay states like Selangor and Perak. Also what is the difference between Malaya and India which is a British colony?
“The British allowed the Malay rulers to remain and the states were designated as protectorates to prevent defiance as occurred in India. That is why British introduced the indirect rule system in Malaysia by placing residents as advisors to the sultans when in reality they were the real administrators.”
He was responding to Professor Zainal Kling’s assertion on Friday that Malaya had “never been
colonised”.
colonised”.Forbidden by Treaty
The IIUM professor said the British wanted to show the Malays that the states remained in Malay hands by allowing the sultans to remain in power.
“However in reality, the administration of the state was done by the British through their residents. This means in theory, the Malay states were not being colonised as the sultans were not removed as was done in India and Burma. But in reality, the British made all decisions,” he stressed.
“Even in Islamic or religious affairs there was also interference although by treaty it was forbidden. For example British governor Sir Andrew Clarke interfered to prevent the then-Perak Raja Muda from leading a religious council.
“That is why there were incidents of rebellion against the British with Datuk Maharajalela in Perak, Mat Kilau and Datuk Bahaman in Pahang, Tok Janggut in Kelantan and Abdul Rahman Limbong in Terengganu.”
Abdul Aziz said in reality all these Malay warriors were fighting the British but they were fighting them with indirect support or backing from the sultans who were silently objecting to colonial rule.
“We acknowledge the sultans were given wealth and titles by the British and they also fought among themselves for power.
“However, the British felt uncomfortable with the sultans and tried to remove by introducing the Malayan Union.”
“This was resisted by the Malays. If Malayan Union was implemented then it would seem the British mission to colonise Malaya would be complete. However, this, as we know, did not happen.”
He pointed out that before Merdeka, constitutionally, the laws were made by the sultan.This, Abdul Aziz said was because the house was appointed by the sultan and he signed the law.
“However, in reality did this happen?” he asked, adding that sultan only signed the legislation and in fact the laws were made by the British. “Legally it is viewed that the laws came from the sultan and not the British,” he stressed.
“Whatever laws not repealed by the Parliament or the state legislative assembly are still legal till today.”
In reference to the federated and unfederated Malay states, Abdul Aziz noted that both groups operated in essentially the same way, with one group having British ‘advisors’ and the other British ‘residents’.
State of confusion
Abdul Aziz said Zainal Kling, a professor in sociology, and Khoo Kay Kim, a history professor, were confused and had confused the people with their statements.
“Historians themselves say the British administered Peninsular Malaysia. If what they (Zainal and Khoo) claim is the truth, then why do we celebrate Merdeka?” he asked.“It would be unfortunate that the first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman (right) would lose his title as the Father of Independence because we had never been colonised!”
Abdul Aziz jokingly pointed out that it was funny the National Professor’s Council (of whom he is not a member) did not seem to know what they were actually debating.
“They are bent on attacking (PAS deputy president) Mat Sabu…who said one thing but the council has interpreted it as meaning something different,” he said.
The PAS deputy president in his speech on Aug 21 at Tasek Gelugor, had reportedly said that Mat Indera, who was part of the attack by insurgents on the Bukit Kepong police station, was the real hero of the incident.
His view went against the version perpetuated by UMNO and sparked off a huge debate.On the same matter, Perak PKR expressed shock with the remarks by Zainal and said “nobody in his right mind would say this land was never colonised.”
Its information chief Zulkifly Ibrahim also slammed the academics for failing to mention the role of the ulama in the independence struggle such as those in PKMM, API, Awas, KMM, Hizbul Muslimin and individuals such as Abu Bakar Baqir, Dr Burhanuddin Al Helmi, Ahmad Boestaman and Ishak Haji Muhamad (Pak Sako).
Zulkifly also described Zainal’s statement as mirroring that of an apologist for British colonialism and UMNO for ommitting to cite the contributions of nationalist and ulama activists other than those in UMNO.
“PKR is of the view that one result of being colonised is that a number of us are trapped in that syndrom whereby we measure ourselves only according to terms accepted by the British.
“Although our lands were freed 54 years ago, our people still maintain characteristics of a colonised people,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment