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.

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.

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

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

Thank you, sir.

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!

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

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.