The national laureate asks why Mahathir allowed celebrations for 22 years if he believed that the British never colonised Malaysia.
The poet, novelist and activist said the issue needed clarification, now that former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Zainal Kling of the National Professors’ Council had gone against conventional belief to assert that the British never colonised this country.
“So now I think we have every reason to rectify this,” he said. “And I agree that we shouldn’t celebrate until we really know whether we’re Merdeka or not.”
Samad said he wondered why Mahathir had taken so long to tell Malaysians what he truly believed about Malaysia’s past relationship with the British.
“You must know that Mahathir was the PM for at least 22 years. Why didn’t he tell us this before? That’s very funny. Why did he allow the nation to celebrate Merdeka for 22 years under his reign?”
The 76-year-old Samad said it was his opinion that Malaysia was in fact colonised. “We really cannot say we were not.”
Commenting on the idea of calling in a team of experts to re-study Malaysian history, Samad said: “Yes, as usual, you need a team of experts, but this time you need to include the opposition historians.”
He said the recording of Malaysian history had, for many years, been skewed towards “one side only”, ignoring the substantial contribution of people like Mat Indera, Mat Kilau, Ahmad Boestamam and Ishak Haji Muhammad in the struggle for independence.
“They fought for independence, but have not been given good space in history,” he said. “I think the door of history is open now. Now you can see what is inside and rectify anything that you think is not right.”
Receiver of independence
Samad stuck to an opinion he expressed in a recent forum – that Tunku Abdul Rahman was more a “receiver of independence” and less the “father of independence” that official history has made him out to be.
Joseph Milton Fernando, a senior lecturer in Universiti Malaya’s History Department, said the question was more complex than most people would think.
He said the British had “considerable control” over the Federated Malay States although these were officially “protectorates”. Other states that eventually became members of the Malay Federation were either “crown colonies” or “protected states”.
“But I do not think we could just say we were not colonised, because if we were never colonised, there would not be a need to struggle for independence,” said Fernando, who has written several books on the history of Malaysian independence.
Commenting on suggestions for the banning of Merdeka celebrations and history books, he said some groups were being “mischievous”.
“Merdeka was not given on a silver platter,” he said. “Many groups contributed to independence, some more than others.”
Setting record straight
MIC secretary-general S Murugessan said calling for a ban of Merdeka celebrations or history texts was “going overboard”.
He said not a single country in the world could claim that its official history was beyond dispute.
“Even a single historical event can give rise to many interpretations. Scholars, historians and politicians have, through the ages, interpreted history from their own standpoints.
“However, Merdeka is a national celebration and is etched in the collective memory of all Malaysians.”
He said there was no need for an independent team to review Malaysian history because the public had access to enough materials and records.
“However, I do agree that we need a multiracial and independent panel to vet all historical textbooks to maintain factual accuracy and to prevent authors from passing off their own judgment and opinions as fact,” he said.
Yap Pian Hon, a veteran MCA leader, said that the government should “set the record straight” and not let the issue continue to confuse the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment