Thesun 2009-05-04 Page12 One Malaysia Many Histories

12

theSun

speak up!

| MONDAY MAY 4 2009

One Malaysia, many histories THERE have been some There is this wacky idea strongly worded letters – favoured particularly by Abiding about history in this newsfascists and communists Times paper in recent weeks. As – that a united citizenry a lowly research fellow I necessitates the imposiby Tunku ‘Abidin Muhriz dare not get in the way of tion of a single national Dr Collin Abraham and Tan narrative. Yet there are Sri Khoo Kay Kim: as a postgraduate dozens of conflicting accounts of the student in the Comparative Politics reigns of Henry VIII or Queen Victoria, of Empire I have witnessed violent and the English seem quite content debates between historians and social with that. There are healthy and scientists. However, if I may be so bold, enriching debates that make history I was under the impression that it was a wildly popular subject both within Hugh Clifford, not Ormsby-Gore, who and outside academia – just look at the supplied the quote in Khoo’s letter, number of historical movies which are “Base conclusions on hard evidence” released. It is inspirational. (April 29). I have hard, albeit secondReversing our situation will require ary, evidence. some enabling reforms, including acaSuch disagreements are why it is demic freedom and some competition foolish for one version of history to be in school curricula. In the meantime, taught as “truth” in classrooms, and we should take comfort in the growyet this is precisely what happens. ing interest in family history, which

is easily the number one resource for alternative accounts of the past, and I’m an avowed fan of the BBC’s Who do you think you are? and the Photos for the Future spots on History International. But it is difficult for Malaysians to challenge official accounts. The textbooks and encyclopaedias say that one of my ancestors arrived in Negri Sembilan in 1773, but recent discoveries show that this is probably rubbish. It pains me that I cannot put this right in the textbooks, and I imagine it offends countless Malaysians who have first-hand accounts from ancestors that the story of our nation has been raped for the sake of academic laziness and political expediency. But if we truly are patriots then we ought to know what really happened, and that is why I keep repeating the mantra that history began way before Aug 31, 1957.

On one important point I definitely agree with Khoo: sovereignty was never transferred from the Malay Rulers to the British Crown. I have here a copy of the treaty between Tuanku Muhammad and Queen Victoria’s government and indeed there is no such clause. Even the MacMichael Treaties, which the Labour government needed to create the Malayan Union, do not mention the word, and include a clause acknowledging the validity of subsisting agreements. Apart from Penang, Malacca, Sabah (as North Borneo) and Sarawak, we were never formal colonies of the British Crown. The issue of “divide and rule” also seems to have been exaggerated to justify later public policy. For vast swathes of territory (Terengganu, for instance) it barely applied at all and in others there were intra-racial splits and multiracial alliances where conflict and cooperation were motivated by other concerns (like in the Selangor Civil War). Indeed the notion of racial unity is rather dubious; including among Malays: cultural and linguistic unity, perhaps, and even then with variations – as a Minangkabau I will gleefully highlight the many advantages of adat perpatih – but certainly not political unity. I have raised this and other similar points before. Divide and rule, however, has made a comeback in our former treaty partner – but on

class grounds. Notwithstanding the Labour government’s record of failed multiculturalism, last week its budget introduced a 50% rate of tax and the abolition of incentivising tax breaks. My not-so-wealthy friends who were recently laid off despair that this will do nothing to encourage the creation of jobs for them, while my wealthier friends might simply leave the UK altogether. Naturally the polls show massive leads for the Conservatives. It’s taken me weeks, but it just struck me that our prime minister’s “1Malaysia” concept could have in fact been derived from the Conservatives’ “One Nation” tradition, which promotes unity through shared values and the promotion of freedom for all. Although Margaret Thatcher is characterised as having moved away from One Nation Conservatism, she once said this: “From Malaysia to Mexico, privatisation is on the move... We Conservatives believe in popular capitalism… We Conservatives are returning power to the people. That is the way to one nation, one people.” Given his recent encouraging statements on market liberalisation, perhaps Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak could make a similar speech to more clearly define “1Malaysia” – lest academics of the future go to war over it. Tunku ’Abidin Muhriz is director of the Malaysia Think Tank (www.waubebas.org).

letter

[email protected]

Leave police out of trade union affairs WE refer to “Trade union dept lodges report against NUBE” (April 14). According to the article, a senior officer of the Trade Union Affairs Department had lodged a police report against the National Union of Bank Employees following the failure of several senior union officers to hand over documents and audited accounts on the sale of a plot of land and the purchase of a three-storey office building. The senior officer must have made the report either on the directive or with the sanction of the director general of trade unions. We do not know whether the two transactions involve any malpractice or irregularity. It is understood that the DGTU had received complaints from some disgruntled and sacked members of NUBE. It must be borne in mind that it is not uncommon for such persons to make allegations against their union leaders. The union had since clarified that it followed all procedures in the transaction and no one from the union refused to hand over any document to the DGTU. Let us assume that the DGTU has reason(s) to believe that the matter requires through investigations and she is determined to get to the bottom of it. Then

she should do so efficiently and professionally within the ambit of the Trade Union Act 1959. We are advised that the Act contains adequate provisions to enable her to proceed with the probe. If after applying any provisions of the Act, it is discovered that a criminal offence has been committed, then and only then should the matter be reported to the police. According to the DGTU, investigations on the matter had not been completed, but she had chosen to prematurely report it to the police. This implies that she has prejudged the union leaders. We did not issue any statement earlier as we had hoped that the chief secretary of the Human Resources Ministry or the minister himself would resolve the issue. However, it is now clear to us that the ministry is maintaining its “best policy is to remain silent” in the face of any criticism or complaint. We sincerely hope that the DGTU will have the courage to admit her blunder and rectify it by withdrawing the police report. She should also change her mindset on union leaders and treat them with respect. Syed Shahir Syed Mohd President MTUC

CitizenNades is on leave. He’ll be back on May 6.