STRUGGLE FOR ETHNIC UNITY IN MALAYA AFTER WW2 (PART2)

Struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after WWII (Pt 2)

History

Written by Ariffin Omar

Tuesday, 29 December 2009 13:14

The Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948 was just a political arrangement leading to the birth of a political entity. It did not create a nation state nor did it bring about unity amongst the various communities. In 1948, Malay special privileges were upheld; citizenship was made more restrictive for the Chinese. Sovereignty was not in the hands of the Malays while a Federal Council was established and its members were nominated by the British. At the same time that Malays saw Persekutuan Tanah Melayu as a Malay country exclusive to them, the non-Malays believed it to be embracing all the ethnic communities. These contradictory perceptions only testified to the deviousness of the British, in collusion with the Malay elite, who thwarted a viable alternative – the Peoples’ Constitution – that would have laid a solid foundation for inter-ethnic harmony. Persekutuan Tanah Melayu bestowed citizenship but not nationality. Such a tragic state of affairs did not go unchallenged. There were Malays and non-Malays who saw through the deviousness of the new political agreement concocted by the British and the conservative Malay elite and they mounted an opposition to the Federation of Malaya Agreement. Malays from Parti Kebangsaan Melayu led by Burhanuddin Al-Helmi and Ishak Haji Muhammad, Angkatan Pemuda Insaf led by Ahmad Boestamam, and Angkatan Wanita Sedar banded together to form Pusat Tenaga Rakyat to oppose the Federation. The non-Malays especially the Chinese had set up the All Malaya Council for Joint Action (AMCJA) led by Tan Cheng Lock. Together they formed the Putera-AMCJA coalition comprising Malays and non-Malays. These Malays and non-Malays felt that the time had come to work towards building a united nation whereby everyone would have a stake in the country and they campaigned vigorously to put their views across. The aims and objectives of the Putera-AMCJA can best be described as the first step in the history of this country to work towards a serious attempt to promote a truly all embracing national consciousness that would embrace both Malays and non-Malays in the Malay peninsular. The seriousness of its attempts can be seen in the alternative proposed by the Putera-AMCJA that the Federation of Malaya Agreement be replaced by the The Peoples’ Constitutional Proposals. These advanced the idea of a single nationality for all citizens who had to forego other nationalities and sever all other political connections and pledge total loyalty and allegiance to the new nation.1 This Constitution guarantees fundamental liberties and equality before the law. The Putera-AMCA also suggested that Singapore must be included in the new nation-state to be established. What is remarkable about the Putera-AMCJA sponsored Peoples’ Constitution was that the nationality proposed was to be termed ‘Melayu’. This was an attempt to stress the nation’s links with its historical past.2 Even more significant was that the Melayu nationality that was being proposed did not carry any religious connotations. What has not been noted by historians and political scientists is the significance of the compromises arrived at in accepting Melayu as a nationality. Definition of term ‘Melayu’ The non-Malays in the AMCJA accepted the arguments put forward by the Malays in Putera that: “The term ‘Malayan’ to designate the national status was completely unacceptable to the Malays. They [the Malay delegates] felt that that the term ‘Malayan’ had always been used in contradistinction to the word ‘Malay’ to denote the non-indigenous inhabitants of the country, and that the Malays had therefore become accustomed to regarding themselves as excluded from the category of ‘Malayans.’ The use of the term ‘Malayan’ to designate the common national status would therefore involve abandonment by the Malays, as the indigenous people of the country, of their proper title, and the acceptance by them of a title which, in its accepted sense, included many who do not regard Malaya as their real home and as the object of their loyalty.” 3 For the non-Malays to accept Melayu as a nationality was indeed a big concession because they were so used to seeing themselves as Malayan and they expected the Malays to accept this and become Malayan too. The Malay delegates too made big concessions. In proposing that Melayu be accepted as the nationality, they were aware that were swimming against the tide of mainstream Malay opinion at that point in time. They were also aware that if this proposal was accepted, the term Melayu would embrace Chinese, Indians and others who need not be Muslims or observe Malay customs or even speak Malay as their mother tongue. Beyond any doubt, the compromises reached between the Malays and non-Malays were a watershed. The Malay delegates also accepted the principle that there should be equal rights for all with no distinctions between indigenous and non-indigenous citizens.4 The non-Malay delegates accepted that Malay would be the official language while the Malay delegates accepted that other languages may also be used for those not yet proficient in Malay. Sovereignty of the people In short, we need to be aware that in the history of our nation, there was an attempt to get the various ethnic communities in Malaya to work together in building a true nation state where all could have a common purpose and aim as well as loyalty. Indeed the superiority of the Peoples’ Constitution can be seen in its demand that sovereignty should reside in the people. The Peoples’ Constitution demanded a fully-elected federal legislative assembly and its framers argued that only a government elected by and responsible to the people would be able to look into the welfare of the people. In addition there would be a Prime Minister elected by the assembly. The Peoples’ Constitution also deemed it unnecessary that the British High Commissioner should have any veto powers. He would merely be a representative of the British government and give his assent to bills passed by the elected assembly. Even more significant is that the Peoples’ Constitution proposed that there should be a Council of Races consisting of two members each from the Malay, Chinese, Indian, Eurasian, Ceylonese, Aborigine, Arab, European, Jewish and other communities. This council would vet every bill passed by the Assembly to check whether it was discriminatory or not. If it were discriminatory, the particular bill would be returned to the assembly. The council would also have the function of recommending to the assembly any measure which it considers necessary for the advancement or protection of any section of the people.5 Citizens would have the right to petition the council on matters within its mandated portfolio. Each state would have an elected state assembly with full legislative and executive authority. There would also be an executive council in each state headed by a Menteri Besar in the case of the Malay states and a parallel position for each of the states of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. Thus we see that in comparison to the Federation of Malaya Agreement that was accepted by the British, the traditional rulers and the Umno elite, the Peoples’ Constitution was indeed far ahead of its time and by right should have been supported as a viable Constitution that would have laid a solid foundation for inter-ethnic harmony. Despite the good intentions of those Malay and non-Malay leaders of the Putera-AMCJA coalition, their attempt to get the Peoples’ Constitution accepted was not successful. At that point in time, ethnic animosities and mistrust were the dominant features of inter-ethnic relations. Malays were unwilling to trust the non-Malays and the non-Malays were not confident that the Malays will be able to act fairly towards them. Malays and non-Malays both saw the British as impartial administrators who be counted upon to act fairly in any inter-ethnic misunderstanding even though there was ample evidence to show that this was simply not the case. British protecting self-interest The British in particular poured scorn on the Peoples’ Constitution. W. H. Linehan, the noted academic and member of the executive committee established to examine constitutional reforms, condemned the Peoples’ Constitution proposing Melayu as a nationality as bogus in nature. He cited Chen Thung Hua, a ‘representative’ of the Perak People’s Association, who in response to the citizenship proposals of the Malayan Union voiced his opinion that the overseas Chinese preferred dual citizenship. Similarly, Linehan endorsed the Malay Nationalist Party’s view that “if a Malay by becoming a Malayan Union citizen should lose his Malay nationality, the Party were opposed to the whole Malayan Union scheme.” According to Linehan, such views suggest the futility of having a nationality.6 Furthermore the British claimed that Malays would not acquiesce in non-Malays being termed Melayu as a nationality and that non-Malays themselves would not agree to have themselves designated as Melayu.7 Continuing with his scathing remarks, Linehan stated that the citizenship proposals of the Putera-AMCJA Constitution – that provides that any person born in Malaya automatically becomes a citizen and that any such person of the age of 18 or more could make a sworn declaration before a magistrate either that he did not desire citizenship whereupon he would not be a citizen or that he desired citizenship whereupon he become would a citizen – was farcical.8 According to Linehan, the citizenship proposals woul allow blackmailers, gang robbers, murderers and other criminals (who were mainly non-Malays) to become citizens who could not therefore be deprived of their citizenship or suffer banishment.9 There was not a single reference to the proposals put forward in the Peoples’ Constitution that sovereignty should reside in the people through elected federal and state assemblies. The issue of fundamental liberties which are so important in a nation-state was ignored completely by the British in their criticism of the Putera-AMCJA Constitution. These issues were ignored because the British could not oppose the demand for sovereignty of the people and the observance of fundamental liberties. Thus silence was the best weapon to use against the Putera-AMCJA Constitution on these issues. The Council of Races, which would have been vital in maintaining peace and harmony among the various ethnic groups in a fledgling nation state was ridiculed by the British as something that would undermine the Malay position.10 It was clear that the British were rattled by the sophistication and logic of the Peoples’ Constitution of Putera-AMCJA and were hard pressed to reply to it through an open intellectual debate. Thus the Peoples’ Constitution was not thoroughly discussed because the powers that be that controlled the mass media and had political power at their disposal made sure that this radical Constitution would never be explained rationally to the various communities in order to gauge whether it would be acceptable to all. At the same time it must be realized that the British had just gone through the arduous process of negotiating with the traditional rulers and the Malay elite within Umno and the parties concerned had accepted the Federation of Malaya Agreement as the replacement for the Malayan Union and it was unlikely that the British would open negotiations all over again with groups determined to undermine British political supremacy that was guaranteed in the Federation of Malaya Agreement. The AMCJA-Putera coalition was also under police surveillance and every attempt was made by the British to reduce its influence and to weaken it. Several organizations classified as left-wing were proscribed and their leaders arrested and detained. Boestamam himself was arrested and put on trial for sedition. The Angkatan Pemuda Insaf was proscribed by Gent. Burhanuddin Al-Helmi and Ishak Haji Muhammad were also detained by the British. It was clear that the Putera-AMCJA attempt to forge a working partnership would be opposed not just by the British but also by Umno which saw its attempt to make Melayu a nationality a serious threat to a party which thrived on the politics of ethnicity. Umno campaigned vigorously against the Constitution that was drafted by the Putera-AMCJA using the arguments that it would undermine Malay interests. The idea of Melayu as nationality was a serious threat to Umno’s existence if it gained widespread support among the Malays. For Onn Jaafar who led Umno at that point in time, the only way to destroy that idea was to see it as a threat to the Malays. Onn attacked the idea of Melayu as a nationality mercilessly. He was quoted as having said that “one matter which has been brought up by them from the beginning has involved an attempt to destroy the name Melayu, that is change the term Melayu and every custom of the Melayu… We have been renowned for hundreds of years as Melayu. In the past, every person wanted to become Melayu (masuk Melayu), but now we are asked to enroll or be enrolled as Melayu.” 11 Malay elite wanted non-Malays excluded It is clear that Onn wanted the term Melayu to be exclusive. It was totally unacceptable that this term should be used to denote a nationality. To the Malay elite who were leading Umno at that point in time, the boundaries of the Malay community were impenetrable; non-Malays were excluded in no uncertain terms. But the door was open for the non-Malays to become Melayu (masuk Melayu) but only on the established terms of religious as well as cultural conversion. For the non-Malays, acceptance on such terms was seen as too high a price to pay to gain acceptance by the Malay elite. Since attempts to promote Melayu as a nationality was seen and presented as a threat to the existence of the Malay community at a time when that community felt itself under siege, this noble endeavour to promote unity and integration in a fledgling nation-state was doomed to failure. While it is all too easy to apportion blame to certain individuals for the failure in laying the foundations of a truly integrated nation state, it must be realized that many factors were way beyond the control of these individuals and they themselves were victims of the situation which they could not alter. Onn Jaafar himself realized the futility of a narrow-minded ethnic approach to nationalism and the obstacles it posed in demanding Merdeka from the British who used the reasoning that unless there was unity among the various ethnic communities the prospect for Merdeka was rather dim. In 1951 Dato Onn made the brave proposal that Umno should be transformed into a Malayan nationalist movement and that it should be known as the United Malayan National Organization and it should demand independence from the British. But his proposal was rejected by Umno and tragically he himself was denounced as having committed derhaka (treason) to the bangsa Melayu.12 For Onn it was a bitter irony because after having fought so hard to preserve the bangsa Melayu, he was now accused of having betrayed his own people and had to leave Umno in disgrace. His successor Tunku Abdul Rahman gauged the mood of the Malays well. In his speech after having been chosen to succeed Onn, he argued that “With regard to suggestions from some of our people that independence should be given to ‘Malayan’, the question is who are these ‘Malayans’? This country was received from the Malays, therefore it should be given back to the Malays.” 13 According to the Tunku, Merdeka would be obtained for the bangsa Melayu. However, like Onn, he too would see the folly of such a pronouncement when it became obvious that independence would be a pipe dream unless there was unity among the various ethnic groups. Unlike Onn he was shrewd enough to enter into a bargain with the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and later on with the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC) whereby the ethnic identities of the political parties would be maintained but they would cooperate together in order to acquire a common objective i.e. Merdeka. This Faustian bargain is still the basis on which mainstream political competition is carried out today. But as the pre-Independence political history indicates, the struggle for an alternative politics remains very much alive. Part 1 appeared yesterday. Ariffin S.M. Omar is assoc. prof. in International Studies at UUM. He is a founding member and former president of Aliran. He has published Bangsa Melayu: Malay Concepts of Democracy and Community 1945-50 (Oxford University Press, 1993) and edited a volume on The Bumiputra Policy: Dynamics and Dilemmas (USM Press, 2005). His essay ‘The struggle for ethnic unity in Malaya after the Second World War’ is published in the book Multiethnic Malaysia — Past Present and Future (2009). _____________________________________________________ Footnotes: [1] Refer to Pusat Tenaga Rakyat, The Peoples’ Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Ta Chong Press, November 1947, pp. 46-47. [2] Ibid. pp. 11-18. [3] Ibid., p. 20 [4] This was a far cry from the Umno view that the Malays needed to be protected and nurtured as they could not stand on their own two feet and face competition from other ethnic groups. Umno never realized that Malay backwardness was not due to any genetic or inherent weakness within the Malay characteristics but came about as a result of the rapacious behavior of the traditional rulers as pointed out by Munshi Abdullah and the negative effects of British colonial rule that deliberately neglected Malay welfare. [5] Undoubtedly, this Council of Races would have been able to look into the problems of Malay backwardness and recommend the necessary remedial measures that should be taken to lift the Malay community from the clutches of poverty that had afflicted them as a result of their feudal political system and the neglect of British colonial rule. [6] The British either failed to realize or pretended that they did not know that under their Malayan Union scheme, a Malayan nationality would be imposed upon Malays, Chinese and Indians. [7] Refer to Sir Edward Gent’s letter to H.T. Bourdillion dated 4th. October, 1947. Enclosed with this letter are notes written by Linehan concerning the Peoples’ Constitution of Putera-AMCJA. [8] Linehan conveniently ignores the fact that Melayu nationality effectively eliminates dual citizenship. [9] Linehan and other British officials including Edward Gent should have realized that under the liberal citizenship proposals of the Malayan Union, those same blackmailers, gang robbers, murderers and other criminals would also become citizens and even assume Malayan nationality. [10] Refer to Linehan’s comments as enclosed by Gent in his letter to H.T. Bourdillion dated 4th. October 1947. Linehan makes the claim that the Malays would be outvoted and played out in the Council of Races whose existence is will be limited to nine years and after which the Malays would be left high and dry. [11] Utusan Melayu, 4 September 1947. [12] See Onn’s speech in Ibrahim Mahmood, Sejarah Perjuangan Bangsa Melayu, Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara, 1951, p.304. [13] Ibid., p.314. Comments Add New Search