PARTS of Malaysia were British colonies, said historians in response to claims that the nation’s former political masters were more benevolent than previously believed.
The British ruled directly Sarawak, Sabah, Penang and Malacca, and placed residents in the other Malay sultanates whose advice the rulers had to follow.
A former professor in Universiti Malaya Dr Syed Husin said there were two important aspects of British rule in the nine Malay states from 1874 to 1957, which turned them into effective colonies.
First, the Malay sultans who ruled the states had no power over the administration of their domains, except in matters concerning Malay customs and Islam.
They had no power over matters, such as the economy, security, foreign relations or taxes, said Syed Husin.
“These policy matters were decided by a British resident, which all Malay sultans were forced to accept and consult, and whose ‘advice’ had to be followed,” he said.
Second, the Malay rulers and the aristocracy who defied the British, such as those in Perak, were either dethroned or exiled, and replaced with those who were subservient.
“If the Malay states were not colonised and the Malay rulers were in charge, then how come some of them were forcefully removed if they defied the British? This could only have happened if there was a power above the sultans.”
Syed Husin was countering the argument by former former inspector-general of police Hanif Omar that the British had been invited by the Malay rulers to develop the country.
During a rally by former policemen yesterday, Hanif said the Malay rulers granted independence to a civilian government.
The rally was purportedly against attempts to revive the defunct Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) and its ideology.
CPM fought a 12-year armed insurgency against the former British colonial administration and the Malayan constitutional monarchy that succeeded it.
Other historians, such as the late Prof Khoo Kay Khim, also disputed the view that the Malay states were a colony, arguing they were a “protectorate”.
Another expert, Dr Faisal Musa of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, acknowledged that some historians viewed the British presence in then Malaya not as colonisers but as those who “influenced” the Malay rulers.
But this view is problematic as it insinuates that the sultans were working with the British, said Faisal of UKM’s Centre for the Malay World and Civilisation.
“It justifies the argument that the Malay rulers had conspired with the British. Is this what they mean? That the Malay rulers at the time were not smart enough to the point they accepted the British?
“I think he has to be careful about interpreting history according to his own wishes,” Faisal said referring to Hanif.
In the case of Sabah, Sarawak, Malacca and Penang, the British ruled these territories as colonies, Faisal said.
“Are Sarawak and Sabah not part of Malaysia? Are Malacca and Penang not part of Malaysia?”
Lastly, Syed Husin said Merdeka marked the transition of power from the colonial administration to the elected Malayan government and signified self-rule and independence from the British empire.
“If we didn’t achieve independence from Britain, then why do we celebrate Merdeka?” – December 25, 2019.
History, propaganda are no bedfellows
Penang Institute wants to draw locals back to lit fest
Honouring the spirit of Malaysia 1963
Umno bukan lagi pemain politik negara, kata penganalisis
Comments
Posted 6 years ago by S L · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Swaminaidu Venkatasamy · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Panchen Low · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Mike Mok · Reply
Posted 6 years ago by Citizen Pencen · Reply