Royalty Extraordinaire (Raja Zarith Sofiah)... by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

Royalty Extraordinaire

by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee
CPI Asia

With their front page headlines highlighting developments on the massive Sime loss, readers of the country’s two main English papers may not have noticed the news report of the speech by Raja Zarith Sofiah Sultan Idris Shah, the consort of the Sultan of Johor, which was buried in the inner pages.

The occasion of the speech was a conference on ‘Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason’ held on Nov 16 in Kuala Lumpur. The prime mover of the meeting in which I participated as a panelist was PCORE, a group that is representative of Malaysians who embrace and share the notion of peace as the way forward to achieve unity and integration.

Credit must go to the PCORE leadership for bringing together a diverse mix of young and older people from different backgrounds to voice their frank concerns on current issues and developments in the country.

For me the real star of the conference was Raja Zarith Sofiah. Readers who missed the news item may be interested in the excerpt from the news report of her speech.

“In her keynote address at the Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason conference, she described the use of ‘pendatang’ to describe non-Bumiputeras as “hurtful and ignorant”, and that more discussions were needed to address and resolve the gulf between ethnic and religious communities.

“Rather than simplify and shy away from sensitive issues, we should fight destructive rhetoric with constructive dialogue. It is shameful when apparently educated and mature individuals use such terms or suggest fellow Malaysians go back to where they came from.

Describing her own ancestral background as a mix between Sumatran and Peranakan Chinese, she said it was important to recognise the diversity of Malaysian society, brought about by centuries of interracial and interfaith marriages and communication.” (New Straits Times, Nov 17, 2010)

This open and proud acknowledgment of her mixed ancestral background is quite unprecedented. It puts to shame the way in which many of our leaders who have a similar mixed ancestry either try to hide or suppress the inconvenient truth, or engage in flaunting or agitating a mono-ethnic or religious stance as if this has been part of their, and the country’s DNA from time immemorial.

Raja Zarith Sofiah’s speech was much more than what was reported in the newspapers. It also covered her personal experience and thinking on religions and the importance for Muslims to learn about other cultures and religions and their heritage.

She spoke from the heart, simply and without the need for any convoluted intellectual argument or high sounding clichés to drive home the importance of cherishing and protecting the country that belongs to all of us — highly or lowly born; brown, yellow or black; and worshipping one, many or no god.

Leaders may not be aware of the wide ranging accomplishments and interests of Raja Zarith Sofiah. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and Master’s Degree from Oxford University (her BA is in Chinese Studies). Besides Malay and English, she is able to communicate in Mandarin, Italian and French. She is a patron of the arts, an artist and author who has written children’s books including Puteri Gunung Ledang. She is also the columnist of The Star’s ‘Mind Matters’ column, and let out that her articles are being put together in book form soon.

Although I am a republican at heart, logic tells me that we may need the type of monarchy she personifies more than ever to hold the country together and to remind us of our common humanity. With her and other royalty who care for the country in the way she does, there is greater hope that the nation can overcome the racial and religious demons that torment us.

Finally, I should point out that I was privileged to sit at her table where I and others — during the lunch chit-chat on topics ranging from how the handphone and Skype have transformed our lives to the inconvenience of sleep apnea – learnt that she has sleepless nights thinking about the predicament of our country and our people, and wondering how best she can be of service. The insomnia that troubles her, I am sure, also afflicts all of us concerned about the way ahead for the country.

LKS blog: Transformation starts with transition... By Thomas Lee

Transformation starts with transition

By Thomas Lee

In one of my recent postings on Facebook, I stated that my choice for Prime Minister is Nurul Izzah, the intellectual and independent-minded eldest daughter of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

My good old friend Chong Phow Yew asked why I opted for the unbranded maverick young lady, and not veteran DAP leader Lim Kit Siang or his popular luminous son Guan Eng.
True, either Kit Siang or Guan Eng will make a first-class PM, perhaps even better than Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

But the political reality in Malaysia is such that as long as the race factor is the major consideration in Malaysia, the pragmatism is that the time is not ripe yet for the acceptance of a non-Malay PM, even if the person is a Chinese Muslim. It took the US more than 200 years to finally accept and elect a Black American as its president. Even so, President Barrack Obama’s religious faith is a matter of controvery until now.

A period of transition is needed, during which liberal moderate and intelligent Malays like Nurul Izzah, Zaid Ibrahim, Khalid Ibrahim, Nizar Jammuludin, Khalid Samad, Harris Ibrahim, Raja Putra Kamarudin and many others, who have no racial inferiority complex, no intellectual insecurity, and no social inadequacy, could initiate a mental revolution among the new generation of Malaysians to have a broadened perspective in life and thoughts.

Hence, I strongly support the sending of our students overseas for further studies, hoping that the exposure, experience and education would help in broadening their worldview and transforming them to be more rational, inclusive and judicious in their life and thought, with a real discreet sense of values and wisdom.

Unfortunately, this is not happening, as most of them who are supposed to be “educated” nowadays seem to lack the intelligence and intellectual capacity, the sagacious discernment, good judgment, and astute ability to accurately assess situations or people. Some are downright dishonest to what they personally know and understand, and sell their souls and principles for the sake of money, positions and power. Take the case of one who calls himself an “intellectual” who wrote a doctorate thesis on the evil of the Internal Security Act (ISA), but who rebuts his own research findings by endorsing and supporting the oppressive law when offered a top government post.

Basically, what is woefully wrong in our nation is the fundamental lack of a clear and comprehensible education philosophy based on truth, honesty, scholarly orientation, and an objective worldview. What we are having now is a baffling perplexing education system premised upon racial and political expediency, with nary a concern for the real mental and intellectual development of the young minds. Even a very ingenuous matter like the learning of languages such as English or mother tongues has been turned into a controversial polemic dispute with an ugly racial overtone.

The recent proposal by the federal government to make History a must-pass subject in the SPM has, not surprisingly, elicited reactions and responses from various quarters, mostly concerned about the reinterpretation and reenactment of the local history based on racial factors.

History per se is a very subjective subject, involving the interpretation of events, facts and figures. The narration of historical events is generally coloured by the personal perception, bias, and skewed orientation of the interpreter. The fact that an event took place could not be disputed, but how and why it happened are subjected to interpretation by the historian. The May 13 incident, for example, did happen, but there are many versions of how and why it happened, depending on who is doing the interpretation and reporting of the incident.

Hence, the study of History in our schools is a highly contentious and querulous matter, especially with regards to the official textbooks which are perceived by many people to be tainted with twisted inferences to promote certain racial agenda or political objective.

What we need now is to work for a real transformation of our nation into a truly demoncratic liberal society with thriving and flourishing fundamental common universal values such as the acceptance and respect for each other, without the discriminative coloured considerations of racial, religious, cultural, linguistic, gender, and economic class status. The basic human, civil, and constitutional rights of all citizens must be preserved, protected and promoted.

The destiny of our nation and the fate of our children are in our own hands, and what we, as citizens of Malaysia, must do is to stand up and be counted, by doing our individual part in the promotion, persuasion, and performance of tranforming our nation into a place where everyone of us is proud to call home. Don’t allow the march to Putrajaya to turn from a virtual dream into a dreadful nightmare!

Malaysiakini: Khairy J: a moderating new voice for BN?

Khairy: Relying on the Malay vote alone will lose us seats

Regina Lee
Oct 20, 10
10:55am

 
Relying solely on the Malay vote will lose Umno and BN seats in the elections - that is the reality, said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin.

This was demonstrated in the last polls in which Umno almost lost due to the loss of support by non-Malays, he told the wing's annual general assembly in Kuala Lumpr this morning.

“If we hope to rely on the Malay vote alone, we should be mindful that there are only 73 parliamentary seats with a dominant Malay majority of 70 percent and above. Such is the reality.

“We must learn from the results of the last general elections, where we almost relinquished power due to the loss of support from non-Malays.

"If we still subscribe to the illusion that we can win without their support, then 50 seats currently held by BN are in grave danger.

“If there is no concerted effort to practise an inclusive and moderate leadership, Umno's Malay leadership will disappear come the next election,” he added.

Khairy also said that Umno Youth should stop dreaming of uniting all Malays within the party, as no Malay-based political party can claim to have the support of all Malays to vote the same way in the elections.

“There is no Malay party – be it Umno or PAS – that can secure a hundred percent of Malay votes. In many areas, the Malay political split is such that 50 percent are on one side and 50 percent on the other.

“This means that any side wanting to win, must win with the support of all Malaysians, regardless of race and religion,” he said.

In the 2008 general elections, BN lost two-thirds majority for the first time since 1969, with five states falling to the hands of the Pakatan state government.

Many of the BN candidates lost, with many attributing it to the loss of non-Malay support among the electorates.

Empathise with the non-Malays

Khairy, speaking in his second year as the movement's chief to the 795 delegates gathered at the Putra World Trade Centre, also urged Umno Youth member to empathise with the grievances of their non-Malay fellow countrymen.

“Are we in any way less Malay if our struggle cuts across race and religion, without sacrificing basic principles of our cause? Are we heretics for condemning attacks perpetrated by certain parties on people of other faiths?

“Are we traitors for disagreeing when non-bumiputeras are labeled as settlers and squatters? The answer is a resolute no!” he said.

“In the midst of us calling for Malays to be big-hearted and embrace the politics of moderation, the sensitivities of the bumiputeras must also be recognized and respected.

“... When they are referred to as pendatang or told to return to China or India - what of their feelings?

“This, too, is their country. This is their country of birth; in fact that of their parents and grandparents. What of the feelings of the poor non-Malay student denied government scholarship despite achieving outstanding results?” he said to muted response.

Calling for more understanding between the races, he said that prejudices and barriers will only foster when people fail to appreciate the feelings of other races.

“Young Malaysians live within the confines of their own ethnic communities. The young Malay who attends religious school, a Middle Eastern university and watches Malay programs on Astro Ria is alien to the young Chinese attending a vernacular school, a Taiwanese university and entertained by (cable television channel) 'Wah Lai Toi'.

“Each perpetuates mutual prejudices because of these barriers that exist,” he said.

'Wanting NEP reviewed is not treachery'
While defending the New Economic Policy which took effect in 1970, Khairy also said it was time to take a step backwards and face objectively the reality that the implementation of the affirmative action policy had shortcomings, leakages and loopholes.

“During that (rapid economic growth in the 90's), we saw many Malay millionaires given great opportunities and brought to the fore through privatisation programs and ownership of shares via 'pink forms'.

“Unfortunately, the shares allocated to Bumiputeras to increase the community's equity position were sold because some wanted a quick buck, the luxurious bungalow, the Mercedes, the young wife more becoming of their newfound status.

“With the sudden riches that fell on their lap, they could not remain grounded,” he said.

“This reality demands that we make changes. We must be clear that the New Economic Model does not sideline the Malay agenda. What it does is update the implementationmethods to overcome the weaknesses of the NEP.

“Why should we be afraid of an economic agenda based on merit? Why should we be concerned when those who have the capabilities, who are genuine, are given the opportunity to move forward?” he asked.

“Let it not be that simply wanting to reexamine an approach of the agenda for Malays invites the charge of being a traitor,” he said.

malaysiakini: If it's a problem, don't recognise it... by Kee Thuan Chye

If it's a problem, don't recognise it

Kee Thuan Chye
Sep 22, 10
12:27pm

 

COMMENT Idris Jala is a good speaker. If you listen to him and you don't watch it, he will sell you an idea.

That's what he did - or tried to do - when he gave the keynote address at the “We Are Malaysia” event hosted by UCSI University on Malaysia Day.

He spoke of 1Malaysia and its aims, and how national unity can be achieved. One of the central aims of 1Malaysia is upgrading the diverse population's attitude towards one another from tolerance to acceptance and, eventually, the celebration of diversity. And one of the central strategies of achieving that is the recognition that, in Idris' own words, “in life, there are only two types of issues”.

Sounds rather pat, as if coming from a self-enrichment guru. But as I said, Idris Jala (left) is a seller of ideas.

What are these two types of issues?

Problems and polarities. A problem, expounded Idris, is something that can be solved. A polarity is something that cannot be solved but must be managed. The examples of polarities he gave are old and young, urban and rural, good and evil, rich and poor. Like the North and South Poles, they cannot be removed; therefore a balance must be struck between them.

To illustrate further, he gave the example of his wife and him. She is fastidious in wanting him to place his socks in a proper basket for washing, but he is used to leaving them all over the house. Despite her repeated attempts to get him to conform, he is incorrigible. She on her part takes an inordinate amount of time to get ready when they have a function to attend. It annoys him that because she can't decide on what to wear, they often turn up late.

“That's the situation,” said Idris, “but if we tried to solve it, we could end up in divorce.”

Extending the idea to a wider realm, Idris said race and religion are also polarities, which means they cannot be solved.

“If you try to solve them,” he said, “you could get something like Hitler's Final Solution and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.”

Just a game of semantics?

On that UCSI occasion, Idris got away with not having to answer questions from the floor as there is usually no provision for such in a keynote address. But if there had been, the key question would be: Isn't this all just a game of semantics? How do you decide what is a problem and what is a polarity? Or is there really no difference between the two?

Let's look at the issue of race in the present context. Let's bring in Perkasa, which insists that the 30 percent equity for bumiputeras must be upheld in the New Economic Model (NEM). For want of an opposing camp, let's bring in the MCA, which recently called for the 30 percent to be gradually reduced.

Is this situation of two opposing viewpoints over a racial issue a problem or a polarity? What does it translate into when from this dispute, policy has to be made?

Policy is policy. It provides a guideline for operations to be performed and actions to be taken. It provides a clear-cut solution. It does not merely manage. So how will it solve this Perkasa-MCA dispute?

If Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak decides to listen to Perkasa and includes the 30 percent in his NEM, the MCA might have something to say. Not to mention other groups opposed to Perkasa as well. But since the MCA is a Barisan Nasional partner, Najib or his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, can ask its party leaders to shut up and toe the coalition line, and chances are they will obey. Is that managing the issue or solving it?

While we mull over this, let's consider another point - for an issue to be resolved, it calls for negotiation and sometimes arbitration. There was negotiation between the two differing groups over the ge tai issue in Penang last week and the outcome was satisfactory to both sides. Do we say they found a solution to the issue or that they merely managed it? Does it matter what we call it?

The constitution is the arbiter

It's all semantics. And semantics are of no practical use. Sometimes, semantics create further problems. In any case, the fact that you enter into a negotiation shows that you want to find a solution. If after negotiating, you still can't find it, you may seek an arbiter.

For racial disputes, there is already an arbiter. And that, plain and simple, is the constitution. So how we solve or manage - whichever word you want to use - racial disputes should be guided by that arbiter.

Article 153 of the constitution is the bone of contention. But as lawyer Azzat Kamaluddin (left), who also spoke at the “We Are Malaysia” event, astutely pointed out, there is no mention in that article of special rights for the Malays.

Clause 1 of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

Note that there is only mention of “special position”. And the second part says, significantly, that the Agong shall also be responsible for safeguarding “the legitimate interests of other communities”. It's not all one-sided.

Azzat pointed out that “everyone stops at Clause 1”. But if they were to look at Clause 2, they would see clearly that the special provisions for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak pertain only to positions in the public service; scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities; and permits and licences for the operation of any trade or business.

And in these areas, the provisions have to be “of such proportion as [the Agong] may deem reasonable”. In other words, it's not carte blanche.

Look also at Clause 5, which states that Article 153 “does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.

What does Article 136 say?

It says: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.” This is another limit to the scope of Article 153.

If the government follows the rule of law and interprets the constitution as it should be interpreted, we wouldn't have a racial problem. Yes, problem. Let's call a spade a spade. The racial problem we have now is mostly the result of what the government has done and not done.

It has not followed the rule of law. It has not told Perkasa to grasp the proper provisions of Article 153. Instead, it has been affirming that Perkasa's doing the right thing - only a few days ago, Deputy Education Minister Puad Zarkashi said Perkasa was championing the people's rights as spelt out in the constitution. Perhaps Puad hasn't read beyond Clause 1. Perhaps he doesn't understand it fully.

Gov't has chosen to take sides

In terms of what the government has done, it has chosen to take sides to formulate policies that are contrary to the spirit of the constitution. For instance, is the discount for bumiputeras purchasing property constitutional? If so, where is it written in that sacred document?

The government favours one race and marginalises the other races. With regard to the civil service, it has not upheld Article 136 of the constitution, which calls for impartial treatment for civil servants of all races. Over the past four decades, the promotion of civil servants to the highest positions has been almost totally confined to those of one particular race. Is that impartial treatment?

As for religion, it is again the government that has created problems. Just to name two, one is its action to deny Christians the right to use the word “Allah”; the other, and more far-reaching, action is declaring Malaysia an Islamic state, as Najib did in 2007 when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

“Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state,” he said.

He must surely have read Article 3 of the constitution but chose to ignore what it says: “Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.”

Nowhere is it stated that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Declaration caused fresh anxieties

But by his declaration, Najib caused fresh anxieties to surface and made the issue of religion more contentious. In extreme situations, the provisions of Article 3 have been disrespected. A recent example is Perkasa's lodging of a police report against a church in Shah Alam for planning to stage a Christian play during Ramadan on the grounds that it was seditious and insulting to the sultan.

That police report became a problem to the church. How would it be solved? In an ideal Malaysian setting, the government would have stepped in and told Perkasa to respect Article 3. But of course, it did not. For the church and other Christian groups, these problems will continue to crop up in future and there will be no solution in sight if the government stays silent.

Is the government silent because it now believes it can call such a problem a polarity? And with a polarity, which cannot be solved, the less said about it, the better? Similarly, in the case of the Johor school principal who allegedly made racist remarks, it is better to let the issue be until the public forgets about it?

If so, 1Malaysia is not about taking a radically honest approach towards national unity and the celebration of diversity. It seems to shy away from calling a problem a problem and solving it. Calling it a polarity merely adds a new twist to the propaganda.

So, if Idris Jala comes to your neighbourhood and tries to sell you that idea, be sure to ask him some difficult questions. He's a good speaker and can easily mesmerise his audience. His words may sound pretty until you probe them for substance. If you do, you might find that they amount to nothing more than public relations prattle.


KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up, which won 3rd prize in the Popular Readers' Choice Awards. It has also been translated into Chinese.

Malaysian Insider: Non-Malay citizenship not given at behest of Malays —P. Sivakumar

Non-Malay citizenship not given at behest of Malays —P. Sivakumar

Malaysian Insider, June 18, 2010

JUNE 18 — I refer to the article entitled, “The Tunku, Merdeka and Malaysia,”  by V. Chakaravarthy in Aliran Monthly Vol 30.No1 where he stated,  “Tunku was able to convince the Malays and they showed their magnanimity by granting citizenship to the non-Malays in exchange for the ‘special position’ of the Malays .This was the social contract which was bequeathed to us by our founding fathers”.

Although the article was written in praise of the Tunku, certain aspects of the article, with particular reference to the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays, need to be addressed and put in proper perspective as the above statement is generally the theory propounded by the Malays. At the same time it is also pertinent to reaffirm certain relevant issues regarding the role played by the non-Malays in achieving independence for Malaya.

Distortion
While the non-Malays are without any reservation grateful to the Malays  for accommodating them as citizens of this nation, but to say that it was by the magnanimity of the Malays that enabled the non-Malay to enjoy citizenship status is, to say the least, an exaggeration and a distortion of a historical fact. Some Malay politicians even keep harping now and then that the granting of citizenship by the Malays was a great favour done to the non-Malays for which the latter should remain indebted to them for life.

This sentiment is also echoed at the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) courses conducted by the Government where it was alleged that some Malay speakers had blatantly told the non-Malay participants that they should be grateful to the Malays for their magnanimity in granting them citizenship. It looks like even the Government is tacitly reiterating this fact to the non-Malays openly. Such a preposterous statement will not help to foster harmonious relationships between the Malays and non-Malays but will only mar the goodwill that exists between them.

First of all, the Malays do not have the legal authority to grant citizenship to others as the granting of citizenship is governed under the Constitution. It is quite clear that under the Constitution citizenship may be acquired by a person by (a) operation of law (b) registration (c) naturalization and (d) incorporation of territory.

However, it must be pointed out that prior to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 there was no Federal Citizenship. One was either a citizen of one of the Malay states or a British citizen if residing in the Straits Settlement states of Malacca, Penang or Singapore.

However, by virtue of the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, non-Malay residents in Malacca or Penang, who were British citizens, were entitled to acquire Federal citizenship automatically by operation of law. Thus the acquisition of citizenship by the non-Malays by operation of law is a vested right under the Constitution and not something given at the behest of the Malays as claimed by some.

To support my statement I quote below from the book entitled, “The Constitution of Malaysia “written by Harry E Groves, Head, of Department of Law and Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Singapore, which is self-explanatory.

“Malays are subjects if born in the State. Others are subjects if born in the State and one parent was born in the Federation of Malaya. Malacca and Penang, being without Rulers, did not have any State citizenship. Those who came within the terms of the Federation of Malaya Agreement , 1948, recognized operation of law, registration and naturalisation as methods of acquiring citizenship of the then Federation of Malaya. In addition to all subjects of rulers having Federation citizenship by operation of law, so did citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had certain designated contacts with the Settlements of Malacca or Penang or with the Federation of Malaya.’’

Social contract
The so-called Social Contract is a term used by latter day Malay leaders like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to refer to the reciprocal concessions agreed to by our Malay and non-Malay founding fathers to safeguard the interest of the respective communities, as a sequel to independence. Only our founding fathers would know exactly in what context the concessions or compromises were made as the Constitution only speaks of “safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interest of the other communities” — and nothing more.

However, some Malays claim that the Social Contract was a pledge to confer citizenship rights to the non-Malays upon their agreement to recognise the special position of the Malays. It is a pity that our founding fathers are not around to-day to confirm the true position. Nevertheless going by the version propounded by some Malays it would appear that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was compromised on a quid pro quo basis and not by the sole decision of the Malays. If so, then what is there for these Malays to insist and state that the Malays were the ones who gave citizenship to the non-Malays and to that extent they were very magnanimous.

What about the magnanimity shown by the non-Malays in agreeing to recognise the special position of the Malays in reciprocation to give them a better life? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act on the part of the non-Malays? What if the non-Malays had from the outset refused to concede to the Malay demand on this issue and had remained unyielding till the end. Would the Malays be enjoying the sort of life they are leading without the goodwill of the non-Malays? So, the question of magnanimity did not rest with the Malays alone but with the non- Malays as well. This fact must be appreciated by the Malays at all times. The majority of Malays of goodwill have no problem recognising this fact.

Furthermore, when the NEP was passed in 1970 after the May 13, 1969 debacle, didn’t the non-Malays unselfishly agree to pass over to the Malays 30 per cent of their business equity in the interest of the Malays, as required by the Government? Wasn’t that a magnanimous act and a great favour done to the Malays by the non-Malays in order to uplift them from their poor economic standing?

Giving citizenship alone is not a bounty for the non- Malays have reciprocated in no small measure by developing and contributing immensely to the economic progress of this nation, the fruits of which are also enjoyed by the Malays. Hence, it may not be an exaggeration to say that the non- Malays have given more to the Malays than taken from them in the form of just citizenship only. Yet, the non- Malays do not brag or crow about it as it is everyone’s duty to help one another.

Independence
There is also an erroneous perception on the part of some Malays that independence for Malaya was fought by the Malays only. This view is not only unfair to the non- Malays but is without any foundation. Although it must be admitted that the Malays were the ones who initiated the Merdeka movement, they could not, on their own, have succeeded in their mission as the British government was not inclined to grant independence without the participation of the other races namely, the Chinese and Indians. As such the Tunku, as leader of Umno and the Merdeka movement had to seek the support and co-operation of MCA and MIC respectively to achieve his goal.
These non-Malay political parties  gave the Tunku their whole-hearted support in his hour of need. If the Chinese and Indians had dissented they could have left the Tunku in the lurch by telling the British that they were not interested in independence and preferred to remain as British subjects. But the non-Malays, being magnanimous, didn’t do that. Instead, they  co-operated with the Tunku to lift the country from the colonial yoke. To pursue their goal, the three political parties namely, Umno, MCA and MIC formed a coalition, known as the Alliance to ask for independence from Britain and what followed next is all history, with Malaya attaining independence on Aug 31,1957 to the jubilation of all the races.

I quote below the relevant passage from Harry E.Groves book  (pages12 and 13) which reveals that the quest for Merdeka was the joint effort of all the races and not that of the Malays alone. To say otherwise is tantamount to ignoring and dismissing the non-Malays and their loyal support to the Tunku in his effort to gain independence for Malaya.

“The sentiment for independence continued to grow during the ‘emergency’ period of Communist warfare. In time it became apparent that independence could only be achieved through some joining of forces of the communal parties; and in 1952 the United Malays National Organisation, the Malayan Chinese Association, and the Malayan Indian Congress formed a political coalition, the Alliance, which carried a number of State and Settlement elections. The British Government in 1954 agreed to make a majority of the seats in the Federal Legislative Council elective rather than appointive as formerly. Of the fifty-two seats to be filled in the first such election in July, 1955, fifty-one were won by the Alliance, with voting across racial lines being one of the most striking features of the elections. Discussions were begun in August,1955, between the British Secretary of State, the Rulers and the new Alliance Ministers on the next steps toward self-government.

Reid Commission
It was agreed that a Commission to review the Constitution of the federation should meet in London early in 1956. The Federation of Malaya Constitutional Conference met in London in January and February,1956. Agreement was reached on full self-government  and independence within the Commonwealth. A Commonwealth Constitutional Commission was agreed upon to make recommendations for a constitution. Only five members served on this Commission: Lord Reid, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, as Chairman, Sir Ivor Jennings, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, Sir William McKell, a former Governor-General of Australia, Mr. B. Malik, a former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, and Justice Abdul Hamid of the West Pakistan High Court . No Malayans served on this Commission.

The Commission was given five specific terms of reference : (a) the establishment of a strong central government with some autonomy in the States, (b) safeguarding the positions and prestige of the Rulers, (c) providing for a constitutional head of state, (d) creating a common nationality and (e) safeguarding the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities.

The Commission met in Malaya in the summer of 1956. It solicited memoranda from organisations and individuals and received 131 such memoranda. It held 81 hearings in support of the memoranda throughout the peninsula. It visited each State and Settlement conferring with officials, British and Malay, and met informally with other official and private persons

• The Commission went to Rome to prepare its report.
• The new constitution came into being with the new nation on Aug 31, 1957 ,Merdeka Day.

However, notwithstanding the fact that independence was achieved some 53 years ago, it is lamentable that we are still living as Malays, Chinese and Indians and not as one people. It will be noted that an interesting feature of the terms of reference to the Commonwealth Constitutional Commission, as revealed in Harry E. Groves’s book, at page 13 (see above extract) was the creation of a “common nationality”, following independence. It is regrettable that the Government has failed to achieve this noble objective hitherto. On the other hand the Government has divided the people into Bumiputeras and non-Bumiputeras to be treated differently contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Perhaps the Government prefers to run the nation on ethnic lines as it brings advantages to certain groups of people. This kind of classification certainly does not augur well for the future of the nation as it is bound to create chauvinistic instincts in some people, especially among some Bumiputeras, and keep them apart from the others forever.

If Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is really sincere about uniting the people under his 1 Malaysia concept then it is high time we dismantle racial borders and treat all as one people.
In conclusion, suffice to say that ours is a wonderful nation where all the races have been living together harmoniously for generations in the spirit of give and take. Hence, let not a few overzealous Malay leaders distort historical facts on the pretext of seeking glory for their race by portraying themselves as the only magnanimous people on earth. What these misguided individuals are doing is using the name of the Malay community to promote their own selfish interest. Thinking people can see through them..

* The intention of the writer in writing this article is not to criticise anyone but to stress that historical facts should be projected in the right perspective without any bias so that our harmony and peace can be preserved for our mutual benefit.

* P. Sivakumar is a member of Aliran and President of the Malaysian Indians Business Association.