From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: Re: Merdeka - Malayan Style
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:44:29 GMT

mulliner@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Kent Mulliner) writes:
: independence (until Sep. 16)--a dress rehearsal for 1985?

You are obviously a specialist in our history but your reliance on "official"
history books are your mistakes.
	I rely on words of mouth and "old" history books. I was too young to
recall about the Malaysian incident but I remember vaguely Indonesian 
confrontation. My father is not very political but he and other people know
about the tradeoffs in the formation of Malaysia. These political negotiations
are not published. You are also in the dark about our current situation, let
alone about our history.
	
: 
:     I'm relying on memory, but Azahari's revolt was in December 1962,

I cannot recall exactly the dates but you could be confused with the formation
of Parti Rakyat and the actual armed revolt.

: and Brunei's decision not to join was much earlier than 31 Aug 63.

The armed revolt only lasted for a short time, weeks. If it had stopped earlier,
the wish for the formation of Malaysia on 31st August 1963 will surely be
granted. From my patchy memory, the armed revolt was only crushed within weeks
of the 31st August, only then was the decision not to join Malaysia
acknowledged.
	Remember that Azhari revolted against Brunei joining Malaysia. If
Brunei had decided not to join Malaysia, why should the Bruneians be willing
to sacrifice their lives. It just did not make sense.
	"Life" is very precious. People just do not throw it away meaninglessly.
You must understand the background of that revolt. Indonesia only come in 1965,
not in 1963. Those rebels are poorly armed so was easily crushed but they
were very enthusiastic. The rebels also include Sabahans in Sabah.

: I guess I should reread Zaini's Kearah Brunei Merdeka.  Of course,

Who is this Zaini. If he publishes under the official Bruneian government
blessing, then we cannot trust him. If he is Malaysian, we also cannot trust 
him. He will be truthful only if he publishes outside these 2 countries.

Malaysians do not know the real reason why Brunei did not join Malaysia. The
official version quoted to me by those in West Malaysia, is that Brunei sultan
was not given the first Agong tittle. This is ridiculous because the Malaysian
Agong has absolutely no power and lasts for 5 years compared to the life term
for the current Brunei Sultan. However ridiculous this belief is, it is
the accepted truth in West Malaysia.

The royalty of Brunei, do not want to recall that their Sultan had contemplated
signing the Malaysian aggreement that throws away the power of the Sultan
completely. How do you think they want to tell about Azhari's revolt? He is
now viewed as a puppet of Indonesia. He is now in Indonesia.

: Azahari went on to form the Tentera Nasional Kalimantan Utara (TNKU:
: North Kalimantan National Army) which served as a cover for Indonesian
: incursions.

This, I'm not aware of. I thought he did not have any army, just his Parti
Rakyat. If you have other evidence I love to know. What I know of is the
communist parties in this region especially Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak which
opposed Malaysia. Note that I left out Sabah and Brunei. Communist ideology
cannot take root in predominantly Muslim people and small number of Chinese.
The chinese in Sabah, although large in number, are mostly recent migrants,
from Hong Kong. They did not migrate in the 19th century.
	Parti Rakyat(People's Party), from its name, tend to be left wing,
i.e. Socialists. Azhari could be socialist, but his followers are most 
probably nationalists. There are 2 distinct factions in Parti Rakyat, and the
Malaysian Security is aware of them based on recent incidents.
: 
: 	I don't recall use of "Melayu Raya"--Of course Indonesia was
This is not published because it was just a proposal.
: trumpeting Indonesia Raya, in opposition.  The term Malaysia was
It lends weight to my friends' statement of the existence of "Melayu Raya".
: widely used in 1962 in Lee Kuan Yew"s and the PAP's Battle for
: Merger.  Actually the term "Malaysia" dates much further back
: in time, to at least the beginning of the century.  Various authors
: have tried to trace its origins, but it was particularlly popular
: in the Philippines earlier as indicating a shared identity (similar
: to the ill-fated Maphilindo).  I recall one of the first books that
: I read on the region was Fay Cooper Cole's Peoples of Malaysia,
: which was published in the 1920s (although

This is a very important evidence for me. We learn new things every day.
Are you sure the book's publication date is not after Malaysia. The copyright
could be 1920's.
	If you can still recall, what does Malaysia mean in that book? Does
it Include Indonesia and Philippines?

: I read it a few decades later).  Of course these usages
: differed from became the political entity of Malaysia.
: 
: >	The same problem happened to Labuan. It is supposed to become federal
: >territory at the same date as KL, but history did not permit it.
: 
: 	This I completely do not recall.  Could we have some
: evidence to support this?
I'm a Sabahan, surely this is evidence enough. If you want written evidence,
then search through old newspapers, or interview orignal Labuan residents.
Any volunteer in this newsgroup?

--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet