Ah Q conception of history


Denying that we were ever colonized by the British is certainly a novel interpretation but intensely “Ah Q” if you ask me. I do believe our learned professors have got their intellectual knickers in a knot simply because they wanted to show that our gallant men at Bukit Kepong were not defending British colonialism and thus, chastise Mat Sabu in the process.

By Kua Kia Soong (Director of Suaram)

The Professors’ Council’s recent pronouncement that Malaya was never colonized by the British reminds me of the “Ah Q conception of history”. Ah Q was of course China’s most famous modern writer Lu Xun’s euphemism for a people’s self-deception. In Lu Xun’s fable about the Chinese national character of his time, the feckless Ah Q would put on a ludicrous front of self-deception even in the face of extreme defeat and humiliation; he was a bully to the underdog but sickeningly deferential to the powerful mandarins.

Denying that we were ever colonized by the British is certainly a novel interpretation but intensely “Ah Q” if you ask me. I do believe our learned professors have got their intellectual knickers in a knot simply because they wanted to show that our gallant men at Bukit Kepong were not defending British colonialism and thus, chastise Mat Sabu in the process.

To think that all these 54 years of celebrating Merdeka was all an elaborate farce is as much a smack in the face for the Alliance and BN leaders who have ruled this country since 1957. Maybe that is why UMNO and the BN leaders have not picked up the cue from our learned professors.

If the learned professors had bothered to scrutinize the enabling document, in this case the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957, they would instantly read in its preamble:

“…establishment of the Federation as an independent sovereign country…for the termination of Her Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the said settlements, and of all other Her power and jurisdiction in and in respect of the Malay states or the Federation as a whole…”

Certainly any historian who obfuscates the fact that British colonization of Malaya was for exploitation of our natural resources and cheap labour would be suffering a serious case of intellectual jaundice. British historians Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper in their recent book “Forgotten Wars: The End of Britain’s Asian Empire” have written:

“(Southeast Asia) exported two-thirds of the world’s tin, and British Malaya alone provided half the world’s production of rubber…These industrial colonies were a major buttress of the sterling area…Japan’s blitzkrieg to the south in 1941 had as its principal target the oilfields of British Borneo and Sumatra, and the iron and bauxite mines of Malaya…The economic resources of Southeast Asia were seen by Britain as so vital to its domestic recovery that it was willing to expend an unprecedented amount of blood and treasure in its reconquest.” (Penguin, 2007: 11)

The history and analysis of the Malayan Emergency is necessarily a class analysis of this colonial exploitation and the classes which collaborated with the British colonial government. At the same time, the anti-colonial struggle must acknowledge the contributions of the patriotic class forces in all the ethnic communities to Independence and nation building.

Divide-and-rule strategy was the corner stone of the British colonial power and the communal politics from the Malayan Union (1946) through the Federation of Malaya Agreement (1948) to the final Merdeka Agreement must be understood for us to realize the status quo at Independence and the communalist politics since then. The “Alliance Formula” was rife with contradictions from the start and we are still trying to pick up the pieces today. The repression during the ‘Emergency’ also enabled the colonial power to exploit sectional interests and thereby isolate the working class from the peasantry.

 

The Neo-colonial Solution

From the Colonial Office and Foreign Office documents of the period uncovered from the Public Records Office in London (published in my latest book “Patriots & Pretenders: The Malayan Peoples’ Independence Struggle”, Suaram 2011), it has been possible to provide evidence of the thinking and calculation of Western (not only British) imperialism with regard to South-East Asia, but especially the importance laid on securing Malaya for economic, political and military-strategic interests. They show the priority accorded during the Emergency to defeating the anti-colonial forces spearheaded by the workers. The post-war period was also one of re-dividing the world by Western imperialism, which under the hegemony of the US, began to move toward an integration rather than division of interests. These records reveal the articulation of the whole Western, rather than solely British, interest in Malaya.

The atmosphere of repression during the ‘Emergency’ provided the British colonial power with an opportunity to deflect the forces of revolt and effect the neo-colonial accommodation. The entire colonial strategy – especially the aftermath of the Malayan Union crisis – had convinced the British that the custodians of an Independent Malaya would be the traditional Malay aristocracy. This was in keeping with the communalist strategy of British rule throughout their colonization of Malaya. At the same time, the neo-colonial arrangement had to accommodate the upper strata of the non-Malay capitalist class who were a necessary link in the colonial exploitation of the Malayan economy. The vacillating politics of this class, reflecting its narrow and limited material interests, was harnessed by the colonial state. So much so that when the Tunku and the other Alliance representatives went to London to demand independence, their proposals were accepted “on a platter” by the British government.

The documents from the British archives also reveal that the ‘Alliance Formula’ with all its contradictions was devised during the Emergency. The reform measures conceded by the colonial power and grudgingly agreed to by the Malay aristocracy were in many ways necessitated by the ferocity of the revolt.

Certainly, the Independence struggle and the Merdeka Agreement have to be understood in class terms – the ruling class in the making represented by UMNO, MCA and MIC on the one side, and the truly anti-colonial forces in the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition representing the workers, peasantry and disenchanted middle class on the other. Thus the so-called “Social Contract” would have looked very different if the “Peoples’ Constitution” of the AMCJA-PUTERA coalition had won the day.

The so-called ‘Social Contract’ that has been bandied about by UMNO politicians in recent years claims that there was a “trade-off” at Independence between granting citizenship to the Non-Malays while giving special privileges to the Malays. In fact, this so-called ‘Social Contract’ has undergone three transformations, so much so that “Malay special privileges” in Malaysia today are a far cry from the status quo ante from 1957 to 1971. The Constitution was amended in 1971 after the 1969 May 13 pogrom while the country was still in a state of emergency and the ascendant Malay capitalist class was in total control of the Malaysian state.

Thus, I would urge our learned professors to keep their “interesting” views on “never colonised Malaya” to themselves and not to flaunt them in any respectable academic journals.



Comments
Loading...