From: mulliner@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Kent Mulliner)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: Merdeka - Malayan Style
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:35:28 GMT
Organization: Ohio University Libraries,. Athens


	Since Othman sent this to me and to the group, I'll
answer in the public forum.

In article <1992Sep10.014429.14909@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>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.
>	
	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)
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,
which in Malaysia like everywhere else are the lowest common denominator
and least reliable source of information.

	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
before.  While I would agree that I know less about the current situation,
in the dark would hardly be correct.  Sometimes, as in this case, your
assumptions about my sources of information deafen you to what I am
saying.

>: 
>:     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.

	One solution might be for your to read further.  Parti Rakyat
Brunei was formed 22 Jan 1956.  The revolt began the night of Dec.
7, 1962, and was crushed within a week, with remnants remaining in the
jungle for a few more months.  Soure: Means, Malaysian Politics, 2nd ed.,
1976.
>: 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.

	To refresh my memory, I checked Wang Gungwu's Malaysia: A Survey,
1964, and the Brunei decision was announced two months before the August
date.
>	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.  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.

	As noted above, your dates for the revolt were wrong.  The
revolt preceeded the decision by several months.  As for Indonesia, your
dates are greatly confused.  According to Means, Indonesian guerrilla's began
landing in Johore in August 1963 and on Sept. 2, 1963, 100 Indonesian 
paratroopers landed at Labis, in Johore.  Similar incursions were taking
place in Borneo/Kalimantan, particularly in Sarawak with CCO assistance
(Clandestine Communist Organization).
>
>: 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
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.

>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
less power than the Sultan has now, but a constant concern must be how
long such an anachronism can continue.

>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.

	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.
You might also read the life of Tan Malaka who sought to fuse the two.
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
to the news.  And, of special interst, for a number of years, 
Indonesian communist leader was President of one of the Soviet Islamic
Republics.

	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
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
(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.

>: 
>: KM writes:  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
>
>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.

	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 Philippines was often excluded.  Wang also notes that the term was favored
by Europeans (colonial) officials and by natural scientists and travelers
in the last half of the 19th century and early 20th.  In an article in the
same book, Lord Medway--writing on fauna--notes it was first strictly used
in a zoological sense in 1918 to refer to Malaya, Java, and Sumatra.

>	If you can still recall, what does Malaysia mean in that book? Does
>it Include Indonesia and Philippines?
	See above.

>
>: >	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.

	Noting your confusion above, being a Sabahan is not an adequate
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.  


-- 
*  Kent Mulliner                  *  Voice(614)593-2707 /Fax(614)593-2959 *
*  Assistant to the Dean          *  Mulliner@OUACCVMA.Bitnet             * 
*  Ohio University Libraries      *  Mulliner@OUVAXA.UCLS.OHIOU.EDU       *
*  Athens, Ohio 45701-2958        *  Mulliner@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu        *
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean