From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: Merdeka - Malayan Style
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:19:58 GMT
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

mulliner@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Kent Mulliner) writes:
: 	Since you fail to identify any mistakes (except your own--see
: below), it is hard to understand your assertions.  First, you have
: no basis to determine from where I got my information.  I have followed
: and studied about Malaysia for 35 years (perhaps before you were born)
You are right.
: and have read old, new, and in-between history books.  I don't even
: know what "official" history books are (unless you mean text books,
My books are specialised books on Sabah alone. One used to be our text
book for my bridge class(12year old).
: 	For events surrounding the formation of Malaysia, I am relying
: largely on memory.  I arrived in K.L. one month to the day after
: formation of Malaysia on 9/16/63 (due to a TDY assignment in Hong
: Kong for two months) but knew I was going there for nearly a year
Have you ever gone to Jesselton of North Borneo before this.
: >
: >: 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.
: 
: 	I do have to teach you a little history.  Zaini Haji Ahmad was
: second to Azahari in Parti Rakyat Brunei and ended up on the ground,
: not lounging in Manila like Azahari.  Zaini eventually sought refuge
: in Hong Kong but then returned to Brunei to throw himself on the Sultan's
: mercy, for which he was jailed.  He and a few other colleagues (three
: if I recall correctly) later escaped (allegedly with Malaysian assistance
: and through Limbang).  For a number of years he was employed in KL by
: the Yayasan Sabah.  I have lost touch.  His books have been mostly
If he is the same person who was at Yayasan Sabah house in 1980, I do not
trust this person.
: privately published (and should be available in Singapore at NUS or
: ISEAS or National Library if not at NTU).  Highly recommended for
: someone pretending to such expertise.
It should be nice to know an alternative view point.
: 
: >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.
: 
: 	It was a factor, but certainly not the only one.  There was also
: a rivalry between Brunei and HH Pahang.  Even if Agong for only five
: years, the Sultan would have remained Sultan of Brunei, and as we have
: seen in Semanjong (peninsular) Malaysia, that can carry a number of
: perks and the holder is unlikely to go hungry.  Certainly, it is
He may have millions but now thousands of millions now. Why did he ever
contemptlate joining Malaysia? Something fishy here.
: less power than the Sultan has now, but a constant concern must be how
: long such an anachronism can continue.
As long as the sultan is good to his people, there should be little problem.
There are definite indications that this is true especially when compared 
to Sabah and Sarawak.
	However people may want more than just material wealth.
: 
: 	Any history book will enlighten you on TNKU--such as Means.
: By the way, Means reports interesting stories of Azahari attacking
: the Chinese in Brunei and turning around and embracing SUPP in Sarawak
: in common cause.  As to communism and Islam, history again betrays you.
: The 1927 communist uprising in Sumatra was centered in Islamic areas.
This I am not aware of. I only know about the 1965(?) that brought Suharto into
power.
: You might also read the life of Tan Malaka who sought to fuse the two.
I'm not surprised what turns out. It is more socialism than communism.
COMMUNist's non belief in god is the major stumbling block.
	I know personally a friend who supports Russian communism so strongly
but he still believes in god.
: Certainly you might tell a lot of Chinese and a lot of people in the
: former Soviet Union that communism cannot take root in an Islamic community.
: Only in the past week were the communists removed from Tajikistan according
When you are the minority in an autocratic regime, you are bound to pretend or
follow the master. Some "former" muslims are truely communists but their number
is small in Malaysia. Rashid Maidin and his gang. You must not be mistaken
that Islam is not a race, it is a religion. Any race can be a muslim. You can
denounce or just ignore this religion and therefore you are no longer a
muslim. If you do not practice Islam, you are not a Muslim.
: to the news.  And, of special interst, for a number of years, 
: Indonesian communist leader was President of one of the Soviet Islamic
: Republics.
This is interesting.
: 
: 	More to the point, Tom hHarrisson reports in the Wang Gungwu
: Malaysia cited above, using 1960 data, that Muslim's in Sarawak accounted
: for 23.4% of the population compared with 37.9% in Sabah (hardly a
This contradicts the figure I got of 47% for muslims in Sabah, probably census
in 1967, or even earlier. Now the voters list also point out the same
story. The election results of 1967 of USNO(Muslim based) 14, UPKO(Kadazan
based) 13, 4 SCA(Chinese) and 1 independent. 

	I brought up these facts based on the fact that there is "no communists"
active in Sabah, but not true for the rest of Malaysia.
	How can you explain this? We just look at the special conditions in 
Sabah. RElatively high standard of living in Sabah is questionable because
Sarawak only has that property.
	Are you sure you are talking about Sabah, not Sarawak? A lot of my
"close" West Malaysian friends still think that I'm from Sarawak, despite being
told more than 5 times.
: predominance).  On Chinese, Chinese contacts with SAbah date back
: centuries if not millenia.  The American colony in Sabah in 1866
: consisted nearly entirely of Chinese.  But the exact dates of migration
: are not that important, it should be noted that in 1960, 80% of the
: Chinese in Sarawak were born in Sarawak compared to 77% in Sabah
The number of generations is important. The chinese community in Sarawak
and Malaya dated back to the 19th century. In Sabah, Chartered Company brought
in Chinese in large numbers in the 1920s. K.G. Tregonning, A History of Modern
Sabah. As for the early American colony which failed, the chinese labourers
could have merged with the natives.
	According to the Dusun legend, the chinese settled in SABAH even in
earlier years than anywhere else. THey are a group of chinese soldiers,
ordered by a Chinese emperor to get "gemala"(magic stone) from a dragon,
believed to be at Mount Kinabalu. In fact Kinabalu can be interpreted as
Chinese widow in one of the native's dialects.
	Chinese readers from Singapore and Malaya may recognise the similarity
with the legend of the chinese skirmishes at a mountain, which is now
interpreted as Mt Fuji Japan. The legend actually did not state the place,
because the chinese do not know the local names. It is their justification to
be related to Japanese. 
	WE HAVE a group of natives called orang sungai who are so fair that
they look like chinese. They are not mixed with recent chinese migrants, 
unlike the Penampang Kadazans. THEY ARE treated as natives in Sabah, not even
as mixed race.
	The similarity between the native and chinese legends, coupled with
the presence of these Orang Sungai, just gave further evidence that the
chinese actually settled in SABAH, not Japan. Skin fairness(yellowish) is
not only the criteria because a lot of natives in Sabah, similar to Ibans in
Sarawak are fair, they are related to the natives of Taiwan as well. The 
sungai people are just different from the others, more like chinese(?).
	MOre research should be done to verify my intuition.
: (Source, census via Harrisson).  Most interesting in the Chinese
: question is the bumiputra question.  Virtually all the Kadazans
: whom I have met on the coastal plain are Sino-Kadazan, although
: I'm told in differs inland.  I have a Sabahan colleague who did
: not realize that she had a Chinese grandfather until attending
: her own father's funeral recently.
This is common not only with other natives but not to such a large extent as
the Penampang ones. Chinese men marry the dusun women. However what surprised
me the most is that the most bitter rivaly between Chinese and natives, is
with the Kadazans(Urban dusuns), not with the Muslims. Now it could change
because PBS is in power, and more and more chinese become christians.
: 
: 	This was my error.  I just checked and it was dated 1945 (but
: the field work dates back to the 1920s).  Also the author's name
: correctly is Fay-Cooper Cole.  His chapter headings include the Pygmies,
: the Sakai (before modern sensibilities), the Malay of the Peninsula,
: Borneo, Bali, Java, Sumatra, and Nias.
: 	In Wang Gungwu's Malaysia, he
: notes that the term was widely used since the 19th century as a
: synonym for the Malay Archipelago (Nusantara).  He also notes that
The term Malaysia is very strange to the Sanscrit-based Malay language
widely used by the royalties and educated in this region. "sia" ending is
also strange to the native dialects that I'm used to. Something is fishy 
here.
	HOwever the late Tunky Abdul RAHMAN did not(?) invent the word Malaysia,
rather he prefered Melayu Raya, based on the 20 points for Malaysia,
5. Name of federation: 'Malaysia' but not 'Melayu Raya'
: 
: 	Noting your confusion above, being a Sabahan is not an adequate
After giving you my version of the limited quotations that I can get off-hand
here in Singapore, are you still thinking that I'm confused.
: credential.  I do know from a number of Sabahan friends that (even
: with all of the other dislikes of mainlanders, "theft" of Labuan
: is the most bitter.  A transgression for which Dato' Harris will never
: be forgiven, and an accession for which reason I have never
: understood.  
How do you call, something given without your permission and without any
compensation is? Isn't that theft? Any logical unbiased person know how to
distinguish that meaning. Now I know the importance of "propaganda" or is it
built-in bias. They become utterly stupid.
	Imagine telling someone that it is good for me to give my TV to him
for free. It may be for common good, or good for him , but surely it is not
good for me. This is the argument for giving away Labuan. It is good for Sabah.
	Surely this is nonsense. It may be good for Malaysia, or even for
Labuan residents, but surely not for Sabah, especially when Sabahans do not
get anything after spending so much money into it. At least Pahang and 
Selangor are not that stupid. Actually it is more than that especially for some.
	At least you understand the reason for the delay.

For me the "theft" of Labuan is minor because our loss is only in hundreds of
millions, but the loss of the Oil revenue, amounts to tens of billions, if not
hundreds if the oil field lasts for 100 years.

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


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