A Historian’s View of Sarawak helping to form Malaysia

By Dr Ooi Keat Gin

Dr Ooi Keat Gin is author of Japanese Empire in the Tropics Vol 1 and 2 (Ohio University Press, 1998) and Rising Sun Over Borneo (Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, 1999). He is a lecturer in Universiti Sains Malaysia’s School of Humanities and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society of Britain.

First Visit to Kuching

WHEN I first arrived at Kuching airport in May 1983, I was ushered into the row for foreigners at the immigration checkpoint where my Malaysian passport was examined and stamped “Social Visit”, with an expiry date. I felt like an “alien” despite knowing full well that Sarawak was part of the Federation of Malaysia. My feelings of alienness were, however, short-lived, quickly overcome by the friendliness and warmth of the locals I encountered.

Sarawak Safeguards

Control over immigration was one of the numerous safeguards incorporated into the constitutional arrangements made when Sarawak, together with Sabah (then called North Borneo) and Singapore, joined the wider federation of Malaysia in 1963.

Sarawak Helps to Form Malaysia

Again, here we have the unfortunate concept that Sarawak joined “the wider federation of Malaysia” instead of helping to form Malaysia. It was not Sarawak’s idea of course, but if Sarawak had not been conned into supporting or supposedly supporting it, there would have not been a “Malaysia” and Sarawak would have become an independent nation.

Interference with Sarawak Affairs

Unfortunately these safeguards have proven to be ineffective against Malayan interference with Sarawak affairs and control over its oil and gas resources to its detriment. The Malayans (especially the ruling elite Malays) couldn’t be bothered whether Sarawak remains poor and underdeveloped as long as they get what they want and whatever development supports what they want out of Sarawak.

A burden to Sarawak

The fact is that Malaya, together with its local bully boy, Taib Mahmud and the state BN, has become a burden upon Sarawak and an impediment to its continuing proper economic progress.

The only real safeguard that remains is Sarawak’s control over immigration, but even then any attempt by the state to use it to really stop Malayan exploitation would probably invite a violent response from the federal authorities in the form of a declaration of emergency or other hegemonic response.

The question now is whether under such circumstances Sarawak can break free of the Malayan yoke?

The Malaysia Agreement

On July 9, 1963,

Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng, Datu Bandar Abang Haji Mustapha, and Ling Beng Siew, as Sarawak’s representatives, penned their signature to the Malaysia Agreement in London.

Did they realise what they were signing and did they really represent Sarawak? Jugah in particular did not know how to read or write (according to a fairly authentic rumour he could sign his name by following a tattoo of it on the inside of his left forearm), Abang Mustapha was a representative of the Kuching Malays – seen by many Sarawakians as collaborators with the British colonial regime and Ling Beng Siew of the rich Sibu Foochow Chinese – who had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Malaysia was proclaimed on 16th September 1963

The Federation of Malaysia was proclaimed on Sept 16 that year comprising the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, and Sarawak. The last three territories had been British Colonies until they gained their independence through participation in the wider Federation of Malaysia. Sarawak is poised to celebrate its 38th anniversary of independence on Sept 16.

White Rajahs rule

Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia was a momentous event and a turning point in its historical development. A century of paternalistic governance by an English dynasty of White Rajahs (or kings, from 1841 to 1941), three years and eight months under Imperial Japanese military rule (1941 to 1945), and 17 years as a British colony did little to prepare the multi-ethnic population of Sarawak to face the challenges posed by the concept of “Malaysia”.

Concept of Malaysia

From the start there was no real concept of “Malaysia”, but a very real Malayan hegemonic control and interference over the states of Sarawak and Sabah. Singapore rebelled and was rewarded by being kicked out of the federation, which turned out to be a much better thing for it. Sarawak and Sabah opted to remain under Malayan dominance and were rewarded by the crumbs of their own resources – the main bulk of which fueled the modern development of Malaya and the greed and power of the Malayan elites.

UMNO’s do as they will with the two States

UMNO dealt at will with these two states – which each supposedly had equal status with the Malayan states (as a whole) – until ultimately UMNO established direct rule over Sabah by using foreign illegal immigrants who had been illegally given citizenship and thus outnumbered the local Sabahan natives.

They did not have to do this in Sarawak since Taib Mahmud and the Sarawak BN kept the local populace in check through a feudal mixture of divide and rule, threat, coercion and intimidation and plain money politics.

Nonetheless, through the farsightedness of Sarawak’s leaders, the decisive decision was taken during those critical months between the announcement of the formation of Malaysia in May 1961 and its declaration in September 1963.

Farsightedness? Far from it! They didn’t really know what they were doing and were outfoxed by the cunning Malayans.

Why Malaysia?

But what motivated the federation’s first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, to propose in 1961 that “it is inevitable that we should look ahead to this objective and think of a plan whereby these (five) territories can be brought closer together in political and economic co-operation’’?

Malaysia was Singapore’s Idea

The initiative apparently came from the wishes of Singapore’s leaders. David Marshall, Chief Minister of Singapore during the mid-1950s, was keen for a merger but the Tunku then was reluctant. Then in 1959, when Lee Kuan Yew of the People’s Action Party assumed the chief ministership, he too proposed a Malaya-Singapore merger for economic and political reasons. The Tunku’s initial reaction was at best lukewarm. As the political Left in Singapore gained momentum, however, the Tunku began to warm up to Lee’s persuasive arguments of merger.

Racial Arithmetic

Although the Tunku and his Malay colleagues in the United Malay National Organisation (Umno) did not want to have a Left-leaning Singapore as their neighbour, neither did they wish for a merger with Chinese-dominated Singapore that would mean upsetting the racial arithmetic in favour of the Chinese.

Sabah and Sarawak indigenous People population used as counter balance

The Borneo territories then became imperative components in the wider federation scheme. Nearly 70% of the nearly 1.3 million inhabitants (1960 census) of North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak comprised Malay-Muslims and non-Muslim indigenous peoples, the Borneo territories were viewed favourably as a counterweight to Singapore’s Chinese majority. The racial factor, however, was not then publicly emphasised.

Assumption?

This racial arithmetic, however, hinged on an assumption: “that in extreme racial issues the indigenous population of Borneo might choose to align themselves with the Malays (of Malaya), to whom they were racially akin, rather than to the Chinese”. But there was no guarantee that the Borneo indigenous would swing to the Malays in times of crisis.

Being politically less-sophisticated and naive, they could of course be manipulated and coerced or intimidated into aligning themselves with the Malayans.

Awakening political awareness


But what was the response from the peoples of Sarawak to Tunku’s Malaysia scheme?

Post-war British governments were partial to the policy of disengagement from the colonies; if possible in an amicable and least traumatic manner. Against this background, the Tunku’s statement was received positively. In June 1961 Sir Alexander Waddell, Governor of Sarawak (1960-1963), and his counterpart in North Borneo, Sir William Goode (1960-1963), and D. C. White, High Commissioner for Brunei (1959-1963) were summoned for talks in Singapore with Lord Selkirk, Britain’s Commissioner General in South-East Asia (1959-1963).

Two-steps process

Aware of the metropolitan government’s stance on de-colonisation, the British Borneo leaders did not oppose Malaysia, but they did suggest a two-step process: Borneo Federation (North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak) prior to entry to the Malaysia confederation. In spite of Brunei’s suspicions, serious consideration was given to the Borneo Federation, if necessary between North Borneo and Sarawak alone.

Sarawak was taken by surprised by Tunku’s announcement – without first forming the Borneo Federation

Local Sarawak leaders like Datu Bandar Abang Haji Mustapha and Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng were also partial to a Borneo Federation. Therefore Tunku’s announcement took them by surprise. While others were in a state of bewilderment, Ong Kee Hui, Chairman of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) displayed forceful opposition towards Malaysia.

Ong, together with A.M. Azahari, leader of the Parti Rakyat Brunei (PRB), and Donald A. Stephens, later leader of the United National Kadazan Organisation (UNKO) formed a United Front to denounce Tunku’s proposal as “totally unacceptable to the people of the three territories”.

Stephen Kalong Ningkan – opposed subjection to foreign power

SUPP’s uncompromising stance received initial support from the Sarawak National Party (SNAP) led by Stephen Kalong Ningkan who maintained that, “Any attempt to put Sarawak under the influence and subjection of any foreign power would be strongly opposed.”

That foreign power was and still is Malaya.

But following the digestion of further explanations from Tunku, who paid brief visits to Sarawak in July-August 1961, those who initially were skeptical or had reservations were won over. Moreover, urged by Mustapha, Tunku invited leaders from Sarawak and North Borneo to visit Malaya on a fact-finding mission.

Con-game

This was all part of the con-game, but Sarawakian leaders and most Sarawakians themselves didn’t realise it then.

The Borneo visitors were awed by Kuala Lumpur and were especially impressed with the Malayan Government’s achievements in rural development. Many returned convinced that entry into Malaysia was a good idea. Meanwhile, Waddell had sent local Sarawak leaders (members of Council Negri) to participate in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Singapore in July 1961. At this forum the Sarawak leaders had the opportunity to discuss the Malaysia proposal face-to-face with their Malayan and Singaporean counterparts.

Malaya need a new pool of resources – that is what they wanted to get from Sabah and Sarawak.

Little did they realise that Malaya had then reached the limit of its economic resources and required a new pool of resources upon which to further develop itself, and which was to be provided by Sarawak and Sabah at their own expense and to their own detriment.

It was here that Sarawak leaders began to emphasise the need for conditions in the form of safeguards to protect the rights and interests of the peoples of Sarawak. Consequently, it dawned on the Sarawak leaders that they were directly involved in the deliberation of the fate of the territory – Sarawak – that they had long called their home. This awakening of political consciousness was further developed in the follow-up discussions at the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee which held meetings between August 1961 and February 1962.

Petroleum Resources

One of the main safeguards which they forgot was to keep their petroleum resources for themselves. The Malayans were glad to be silent on this, since they knew that under international law, offshore petroleum resources belonged to the federal government.

Political Parties in Sarawak

The growth of political awareness among the leaders of Sarawak accelerated the formation of political parties and the development of party politics. Prior to Tunku’s announcement in May 1961, only two political parties existed: the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) established in June 1959, and Party Negara Sarawak (Panas) in April 1960.

By the time local council elections were held in June 1963, four more parties were established, namely Sarawak National Party (SNAP, April 1961), Barisan Raayat Jati Sarawak (Barjasa, December 1961), Sarawak Chinese Association (SCA, July 1962), and Party Pesaka Anak Sarawak (Pesaka, August 1962).

The political parties, despite claims by some to be multi-ethnic, were established on communal and geographical lines. All political parties adopted a pro-Malaysia stance except SUPP, which preferred self-government, Borneo Federation, and only then Malaysia.

And so, the political parties took the pros and cons of the Malaysia proposal to the kampungs and longhouses.

The Malay-Muslim communities (Malays and Muslim Melanaus) although split into two camps – Panas led by the traditional Kuching elite and Barjasa by the intelligentsia of the Sibu area – in general supported Malaysia. However, Malay-Muslim groups in Miri, Limbang and Lawas, together with the Kedayans, rejected Malaysia; instead they shared Azahari’s and the PRB’s aspirations.

Iban leaders were divided from the beginning

Traditional Iban leaders of the Rejang led by Jugah (Pesaka’s leader) were partial to Malaysia.

Stephen Kalong Ningkan and his better-educated colleagues from Simanggang and the Saribas area stressed safeguards and conditions in considering Malaysia.

The Kayans and Kenyahs opposed Malaysia.

They were apprehensive of being dominated by their traditional enemies, the Ibans.

The Sarawak Chinese forcefully rejected Malaysia

The Chinese in SUPP that were influenced by Leftist elements forcefully rejected the Malaysia proposal as a neo-colonial scheme designed to perpetuate British hegemony in South-East Asia. Malay, Iban and Bidayuh members of SUPP also towed the party line.

A scheme cooked by Malayans

In reality it was a scheme cooked up by the Malayans to replace British hegemony with Malayan hegemony.

The SCA was a refuge for those Chinese who thought Malaysia was advantageous to Sarawak’s economy. But among the large majority of Sarawak’s multi-ethnic inhabitants, in particular those in the rural districts, there was little understanding of the Malaysia proposal and its implications.

This being the case, could there be any real acceptance by the majority of Sarawakians of the so-called Malaysia proposal?

Of communism and predatory neighbours

By the later half of 1961 British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan (1957-1963) had given full support to the Malaysia proposal. The two-step process (Borneo Federation then Malaysia) was discarded.

The “White Tuan advised”

In January 1962 a White Paper was published and European District Officers were instructed to emphasise to the local inhabitants the advantages of entry into Malaysia as against the uncertainties of the future, the dangers of communism, and the perils of predatory alien neighbours (Sukarno’s Indonesia). In a nutshell, the White Tuan “advised” the people that Malaysia “is good for you”.

Cobbold Commission

A Commission of Enquiry chaired by Lord Cobbold was entrusted with the task of ascertaining the opinion of the general population in North Borneo and Sarawak on the Malaysia proposal.

The Cobbold Commission could not be said to represent a neutral body – three of its five members, including the chairman, were nominees of the British Government and the remaining two were nominated by the Malayan Government. (emphasis added)

Again, that being the case, its findings must be suspect.

Barang ko” nuan Tuan

The commission held hearings in camera (in order that the people shall speak openly) between Feb 19 and April 17, 1962. Members of the commission also attended to some 1,600 letters and memoranda submitted by individuals, organisations, and political parties.

“Barang ko’ nuan, Tuan” (Whatever you say, sir) was the reply of a Dayak to a question posed by Lord Cobbold. This response singularly represented the perplexed state of mind for the majority of Sarawak’s indigenous inhabitants when asked of the Malaysia proposal.

As pointed out by Puan Tra Zahnder, a member of Council Negri, most of the native population, “appear to know nothing or little about (the) Malaysia (proposal) but agree to it because they have been told that Malaysia is good for them.”

Ignorance was bliss, but certainly not any more.

The verdict

The Cobbold Commission published its findings in Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak in August 1962. The report did acknowledge that “there are large sections of the population in the interior who have no real appreciation of the Malaysia proposals”.

Overall, the results of the commission were summarised as follows:

“About one-third of the population … strongly favours early realisation of Malaysia without too much concern about terms and conditions. Another third, many of them favourable to the Malaysia project, ask, with varying degrees of emphasis, for conditions and safeguards varying in nature and extent … The remaining third is divided between those who insist on independence before Malaysia is considered and those who would strongly prefer to see British rule continue for some years to come.

There was no real referendum, in fact no referendum at all, and these figures are too vague upon which to have drawn any conclusions.

Cobbold expressed a cautionary note:

“It is a necessary condition that, from the outset, Malaysia should be regarded by all concerned as an association of partners, combining in the common interests to create a new nation but retaining their own individualities. If any idea were to take root that Malaysia would involve a ‘take-over’ of the Borneo territories by the Federation of Malaya and the submersion of the individualities of North Borneo and Sarawak, Malaysia would not, in my judgement, be generally acceptable or successful.” (emphasis added)

Unfortunately that is what has come about and that is the situation we are at right now.

An Inter-Governmental Committee, as recommended by the Cobbold Commission, was set-up. It was in the committee that the details of constitutional arrangements incorporating the conditions and safeguards for North Borneo and Sarawak – as negotiated by their leaders – were worked out. Jugah and Mustapha played pivotal roles as representatives of Sarawak.

How could an uneducated Iban and a Malay collaborator with the British negotiate anything on behalf of Sarawak?

The pertinent safeguards include: religious freedom, status of the English language, immigration, land, representations in the federal House of Representatives and Senate, special status and privileges of indigenes, and disbursement of development grants.

Local council elections were held in June 1963. The elections, to all intents and purposes, were a referendum on the issue of Sarawak’s entry into Malaysia.

The Sarawak Alliance

The Sarawak Alliance formed in August 1962 comprising of Panas, Barjasa, Pesaka, SCA, and SNAP won on a pro-Malaysia stance. But despite standing on an anti-Malaysia platform and facing allegations of being infiltrated by Leftist elements, SUPP managed a commendable showing.

Owing to pressure from the Philippines and Indonesia, another assessment of public opinion and a verification of the electoral results of December 1962 in North Borneo and of June 1963 in Sarawak were undertaken by the United Nations Malaysia Mission headed by Laurence Michelmore. The mission conducted its duties from Aug 16 to Sept 5, 1963. Once again the opinions of the general population of Sarawak were consulted on the issue of Malaysia.

The United Nation Mission Report

The United Nations Malaysia Mission Report made public on Sept 13, 1963, confirmed that the entry in the proposed Federation of Malaysia was “… the ‘result’ of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage”.

Conclusion

Nonsense! There was no such thing in those days and even today the electoral process is dubious and fraught with fraud and unethical practices committed by Taib Mahmud and the BN government. A truly independent referendum held today completely uninfluenced by the Malayans or the BN regime and their corrupt practices would show an overwhelming majority of Sarawakians wanting out of Malaysia.

Therefore, on Sept 16, 1963, Sarawak achieved its independence through Malaysia – and a new chapter in its history began.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Related posts:

  1. How Sarawak Was Conned Into The Formation Of Malaysia Taken from: Sarawak Head Hunters Posted by Al Tugauw Friday,...
  2. Sabah 20 points / Sarawak 18 points agreement Written by Dr. John Brian Anthony For further information in...
  3. A Dayak View on 1 Malaysia Posted by: Anek Uren New PM – New CONCEPT If...
  4. Sabah and Sarawak did not JOIN Malaysia, they formed Malaysia with Malaya and Singapore Posted by: Dayak Undead SABAH AND SARAWAK DID NOT JOIN...
  5. Kuala Lumpur has total disregard for the native ethnics of sarawak and Sabah. Posted by The Point of View Central Rule by Kuala...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Comments

7 Responses to “A Historian’s View of Sarawak helping to form Malaysia”

  1. Equaliser on November 19th, 2009 4:19 pm

    Dear friends,

    Please be reminded that the “history-expert writer” was JUST GIVING HIS VIEWS, not HISTORY. Right or Wrong, there are just views. So don’t get overly excited about the write-up. For I know, it is a good propaganda piece.

    The main things were:

    a. We were no match ‘playing’ the political game against the British and Malaya. We were not up to their standard.

    b. Our leaders had let us down, and down badly. But don’t be too hard on them.

    c. SUPP and the Orang Ulu were against the concept of Malaysia. The Dayaks, especially the Iban, then, the powerful group didn’t go with SUPP and the Orang Ulu..

    d. The British used “Scared Tactics” or “Psychology of Fear” on our leaders who agreed, could be for own personal benefits.

    e. Unfortunately the late Tan Sri Ong Kee Hui could not be here to tell us the real story. I believe, he could be the ONLY that could tell us the truth.

    So, like it or not, Sarawak, Sabah and Malaya are married and Malaysia is the off-spring.

    God bless Malaysia. God make a Change.

    Thank you, Dr. John.

  2. Manang Empangau on November 19th, 2009 9:18 pm

    Equalizer wrote:

    c. SUPP and the Orang Ulu were against the concept of Malaysia. The Dayaks, especially the Iban, then, the powerful group didn’t go with SUPP and the Orang Ulu..
    —————————————-

    That’s why today we have many Iban ministers in the state cabinet. CM Type loves the Iban so much too. The Ibans are loyal to the formation of Malaysia and yet the PM is more caring towards our Bidayuh brothers giving RM4m for the Bidayuh building. The Iban was considered pengkianat for accepting the formation of Malaysia, not united with the chinese and Orang Ulu to reject and this is the point why other dayak may not like to be united witht the sea dayaks.

    Just my assumption.

    ME

  3. gerabusengkiong on November 20th, 2009 12:22 pm

    Equaliser wrote:-

    SUPP and the Orang Ulu were against the concept of Malaysia.The Dayaks, especially the Iban, then the powerful group didn’t go with SUPP and the Orang Ulu…
    __________________

    In 1970 when the first coalition government was formed in Sarawak, it was the SUPP which jumped with full enthusism at the opportunity to govern Srawak together with Rahman Ya’akub’s Party Bumiputera Bersatu, after it had been in the opposition eversince Malaysia’s formation in 1963. From what I had gathered from some of the Iban politicians of those days, SNAP had initially invited SUPP to come together with Pesaka to form the government because then, no single political party had a clear majority over the other after the election result was known.

    For reasons best known to themselves, and which the two leaders of SUPP had brought to their graves, SUPP at the 11th hour, and shrouded in secrecy, met Rahaman Yaakub,and eventually agreed to form the coalition government with Rahman’s Party Bumiputera, leaving the two Iban based parties (namely SNAP and Pesaka) in the lurch. Just because they did not have any Iban representation in their newly hetched up coalition, Rahman, as foxy as had known to be, cleverly enticed two Iban elected reps from Pesaka, in the person of Simon Dimbab Maja and Penghulu Abok, to be quickly sworn in as cabinet ministers. And Dimbab Maja, being the better educated one between the two, was made DCM 2, just to appease the Ibans. And the rest is history.

    Now, had SUPP (a predominantly Chinese party)agreed to parley with SNAP and Pesaka then, the post of the Chief Minister would never have had been held by a Melanau-muslim. And we all can see what’s been happening to us (especially the Ibans) to this day. That day in 1970 spelt the doom of the Iban people, and the beginning of a tyranical dynasty, which has lasted for the past 29 years. But let’s pray it will come crumbling down soon, like the wall of Jericho as in biblical times.

    So who betrayed who here? And remember that, if read into history, the Melanaus never have much liking for the Ibans, anyway. To the Melanaus, the Ibans have always been their traditional enemy, as far back as the head-hunting days.

    Cheers!

  4. Equaliser on November 20th, 2009 8:27 pm

    Dear friends,

    We are discussing the topic related to the choices before the formation of Malaysia and not after.

    Thank you, sir.

  5. Dayak New Generation on November 20th, 2009 11:46 pm

    1 Malaysia history lesson : The Federation of Malaysia

    Singapore suggested idea of merger in 1955 & 1959 – was rejected by Malaya – 2 reasons : racial composition & the threat of Communism.

    On 27th May 1961, Tunku proposed to merge Malaya, Singapore & Borneo territories of North Borneo, Sarawak & Brunei.

    Reasons Why Malaya Proposed the Idea of Merger:

    1. Experienced 4 years of independence
    2. Steady economy development
    3. Standard of living
    4. Success to overcome the communist threat in Malaya
    5. Communist Threat:
    Singapore:-
    • strikes & unrest in the mid-1950s – Lee Kuan Yew brought some of the communists into his government – hoping to win their support & moderate their views – failed
    • communists were forced to resign – formed Barisan Sosialis
    Sarawak:-
    • communists – underground associations
    • exerted its influence on worker’s associations, students & farmers

    6. Economic Advantages:
    Singapore:-
    • 1.7 million population
    • 250 manufacturing firms
    • most importance port in South East Asia
    Borneo territories:-
    • petroleum, natural gas, timber, pepper, rubber etc.

    7. Cultural similarities:
    • Ethnic balance

    8. To encourage independence:
    • Singapore : had a large degree of self-governing
    • North Borneo & Sarawak : still under British colonization
    • Brunei : ruled by its Sultan but with a High commissioner to advise him

  6. Iban Abroad on November 20th, 2009 11:56 pm

    DB/DL or in perfect word PR/BN,

    For me let the history is gone and minimize the damaged from it at the same time maintain the future. Even Obama refuse to open the History Book of America rather he minimize the demage and construct the good future.

    Iban has very bad history in the past, one of the example is 4 Antu Pala in my house. I always tell my kid this is part of Iban Bad History. Do not repeat it with whatever means.

    Sarawak joint Malaysia or not joint Malaysia for me is not much different. I believe that sooner or later, ASEAN country will like a village. I made a few tour thro Europe and there is no single immigration on the border. It is look-like our village. The history of Europe, I do not think, I need to put in detail here, as it was 100 time worst than Malaysia.

    As I said before, now Dayak is part of Malay and Malay is part of Dayak. If we keep on open the book of our history, at the end we may chase our friend Non-bumiputra to the sea.

    Then we may say that Singapore is not independent country rather it is colonized by Non-bumiputra. Nobody can deny that Singapore is Tanah Melayu.

    We may make new Nation and later apply for ASEAN. In ASEAN we will talk about cooperation, helping each other, share the value and so on. What all this mean?

    Make a short cut, we shall respect each other. I mean Non-Dayak shall respect Dayak Right including 18 points Sarawak joining Malaysia and NCR. Do not sapbotage it. If only Dayak can own the NCR Land, put it in that way do not change the Law and enroute non-Dayak to buy it. If the area is majority Dayak, give the Dayak a chance to be YB. Do not put children from other race there. Thing like this is insulting Dayak. No respect.

    Put forward good policy and delete the bad policy. Good policy such as creates the dual-party system and bad policy making a Dynasty in your state. The rest of the example you make yourself

    It is more logic we talk about bad policy rather we talk too much about history. Now a day bad policy is very common. Fight against it. Criticize it. Condemn it. Bad policy will not happen today only but it will happen again and again even in next gomen after BN. Its happen everwhere in this Globe. Prepare outself to work together against Bad Policy or Bad Gomen. We shall concentrate on it.

    We hear, feel and see that Dayak has been discriminated and Sarawak has been marginized from Malaya. All of these are becos of bad gomen and bad policy not becos of our History or system.

  7. MERAMAT TAJAK on November 21st, 2009 10:25 pm

    DB readers,

    I trust this version of the pre-Malaysia history of Sarawak, than the lies in the history school book.Dr Ooi, after all – is a reknown academic.

    The question is, so what ?

    Tunku Aziz, in his article – is also surprisingly candid. While Dr Ooi wrote of history, Tunku Aziz wrote of the present condition, with a historical backdrop – that gave rise to the present.

    Again, the question is, so what ? What do you make of it ?

    Tunku Aziz is a DAP man. I could not determine (yet) if his generous political position on Sabah/Sarawak is shared by DAP rank and file, but its significant that he wrote the piece.

    Note also that Dr Jeffrey Kitingan had demanded PKR to revisit Sabah 20-point agreement, as his precondition, to further his political future in PKR.Regardless of whether Dr Jeffrey will get his way, I think his brave action must have got the attention of people like Tunku Aziz.

    Putting these buzz together, plus the call by many influential Malays to question Bumiputera rights, Malay rights, Ketuanan Melayu … is providing a small indication of progressive thought among Malaysians, that I believe will grow…. or at least, will not be subjugated.

    I think Dayak in this beautiful DayakLand, should pay attention to this trend of progressive thought. See – its quite telling that the 2 articles does not appear to generate much feedback in the original media where it was published. To my mind it means, the Malaya folks may not care that much if Sarawak and Sabah wants to secede from Malaysia. Either that, or they presume that since there is the tough anti-secessenist law, no Sarawakian or Sabahan will dare to even think about the mega divorce !

    As an enlightened DayakBaru, what would you say to Tunku Aziz, Dr Jeffrey or Dr Ooi ? No, we won’t even dream about it ? That we would be too scare of the law, to even think ?! Well, this is how I see it.

    Malaya will not be too keen to keep Sarawak in the Federation, once the oil and gas has dried up in 30 years. Simple reason – no more money for the Federal coffers ! I believe even the perpetually supply of electricity from Sarawak dams, will not be enough to keep the Malayan interest in Sarawak, alive.

    As the oil revenue decrease throughout the next 30 years, the Malayan economies will have transition from oil to manufacturing and to the knowledge economy while Sarawak will stay static. For that reason, in 30 years time – Sarawak may have nothing else for Malaya to grab and exploit.

    In 30 years, the current migration of workers from Sarawak to Malaya will be intensified. The rural Dayak as anyone can imagine, will have no where else to work. Not trained to farm their NCR land, they would naturally wander around the streets of Malayan, Singaporean, Thailand cities to eke out a living.

    So it would not be far-fetched for Malaya, to want to secede from Malaysia, 30 years from now – anyway ! Tunku Aziz, in my view – may also have a similar dimmed but realistic forecast of Sarawak, at the end of the oil period of the state economic history.

    This is just a thought. Given that history has shown us that Sarawak was conned into joining the Federation,and given that the Federation is not giving the state enough autonomy to develop itself, articles like Dr Ooi and Tunku Aziz, and the action of people like Dr Jeffrey, provides some courage to dream of justice; to think.

Leave a Reply




Bad Behavior has blocked 1293 access attempts in the last 7 days.