How the Malays lost Tanah Melayu
Indians could not return to India in 1957 and neither would Britain allow them into the UK. Hence they were misplaced or stateless. And Britain forced Umno to agree to absorb the Indians and Chinese and the Malay population dropped from 95% to 50% overnight.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Prof Dr Ramasamy Palanisamy’s article on the history of Malaysia is full of nonsense (READ HERE).
First of all, let’s talk about Ramkarpal Singh’s statement: “Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s remarks on how the Malays were forced to accept orang asing (foreigners) during British rule in exchange for independence is downright insulting and unbecoming of a prime minister who represents all Malaysians.”
What’s insulting about the truth? Japan and Germany lost WWII. If I were to say that, how can that be insulting the Japanese and Germans?
Ramasamy said:
In a sense, this divide and rule policy suited the British colonial interest for political stability and for the extraction of economic surplus.
The divisions of races was also challenged by the Communist Party and social and political forces based on ideology rather than race or religion.
Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar even suggested to open up Umno to other races but it was vehemently opposed resulting in his resignation.
Of course Ramasamy would say that. He is an Indian and he is looking at history from the lenses of an Indian.
Indians could not return to India in 1957 and neither would Britain allow them into the UK. Hence they were misplaced or stateless. And Britain forced Umno to agree to absorb the Indians and Chinese and the Malay population dropped from 95% to 50% overnight.
That is a fact of history, just like the Emergency and Konfrontasi did happen. How to change a fact of history, just like the history of the Black Hole of Calcutta? Ramasamy is nuts.
How were the British able to take over the richest nation of that era, India, and turn it into British India? Because the Indians did not unite and fought amongst themselves.
How were the whites able to take over America? Because the Native Americans a.k.a. ‘Red Indians’ did not unite and fought amongst themselves.
How were the British able to turn Tanah Melayu into British Malaya? Because the Malays did not unite and fought amongst themselves.
We had the Perak Wars, Selangor Wars, Negeri Sembilan Wars, Pahang Wars, and so on. And every time the Malays killed each another, we saw what was called ‘British Intervention in the Malay States’.
The British took over Penang and Singapore by doing a deal with the Sultans. The British took over Kedah, Perlis, Terengganu, and Kelantan by signing the Bangkok Treaty with Siam in 1909 (these were the Unfederated Malay States).
Now, note these terms: Federated Malay State, Unfederated Malay States, British Intervention in the Malay States.
What do you notice?
Yes, you are right, they all refer to ‘Malay States’. MALAY STATES! So what is racist about saying that? Would it be racist to say India belongs to the Indians and China belongs to the Chinese? If not, why call these countries India and China?
And why did the British insist that Islam be the religion of the Federation and Malay be the National Language if Malaya is not a Malay-Muslim country?
And why did the British retain the Sultans and not abolish the monarchies like what they did in India?
Because India was Indian and the country did not have a 50% non-Indian population on gaining independence like what happened to Malaya in 1957. So the British had to ensure that the Malays continued to own Malaya and not lose the country to the immigrants who had just been granted citizenship.
This is history and it is not racism to state the truth of history. Ramasamy of all people should know this. Is he really a PhD? How come he declares a fact of history as racism? He is living in denial if he denies that the Indians were immigrants who the British forced Umno to give citizenship in 1957.
