Bloggers of Malaysia, unite!

United we stand, divided we fall.

Source: kickdafella

Demystifying Sarawak's Anti-Cessionist

It is commonly believed that during the attempt to cede Sarawak to the British Crown in 1946, the Sarawakians protested the upcoming cession. While much has been said about the opposition to the cession itself, there was little mention of the real reason why the plan was met with opposition.

The real reason? They want Brooke to stay.

Indeed, this could prove shocking. This reason was not mentioned explicitly in the Form 5 History Textbook (2003). Why would a movement that has been for generations portrayed as 'nationalist' would want Brooke to remain the Rajah of Sarawak? The reason was in the 1941 Draft constitution that will pave way for a self-governing Sarawak. This is what the anti-cessionists want: to have self-rule, the Rajah must be present to assent and make the changes necessary.

But this does not mean that the cession did not have any positive effects on the state's history. Had it still been under the Brooke's rule, the formation of Malaysia will be drastically different from what history has noted. It is possible that Sarawak would have not joined Malaysia at all. Another scenario is that the state could find itself part of the North Borneo Federation, together with Sabah and Brunei and probably under the rule of the Sultan of Brunei.

But the point still stands: Sarawak's anti-cessionists wanted the continuation of Brooke rule and not being part of the British Crown Colony (Sarawak is recognised as an independent state by Britain and became a British Protectorate in 1888); not the image of 'nationalist' as portrayed by Government text books!

Citizens rejoice! I have added the Malayan(?!) Proclamation of Independence to Wikisource. Now you won't have to look for it all over the place, yarr.

What not to wear in Kota Bharu

What not to wear in Kota Bharu:

• Saree
• Kebaya
• Short qipao
• Native dresses of Sabah and Sarawak

Will someone bring the MPKB to court for being un-Constitutional?

“For misinformation, go to the mainstream media. For cold hard facts, look out for rumours.”

Only in Malaysia.

Government of the people... not

A little bit of introduction is necessary. They had been squatters for 30 years, and is (or was?) waiting for the completion of an alternative housing project before they leave the kampung. But Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya (MPAJ), the local council in charge of the area decided to charge in (pun intended) even though the villagers' court case is still pending.

This is why I am for the return of local elections. Local councilors who actually have responsibility to the people who voted them into office can be held accountable. They are elected instead in Malaysia, thus having little or no responsibility to the people. Needless to say, one must also be well connected to get into that office.

And where are the keris-wavers? These are their supporters. Are they 'turning a blind eye'? Probably. For they don't care about any other race except their own: the UMNOputra race. Any other race, including Malay, Indian, Chinese et al are insignificant in their view.

Related:
http://tonypua.blogspot.com/2006/11/marginalising-poor.html
http://www.niknazmi.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/381
http://tian.keadilanrakyat.org/?p=118
http://www.jerit.org/pictures/peneroka/berembang/berembang.htm

PM asking the media "to turn a blind eye"

When the reporter replied in the affirmative, Abdullah then said the media should stop highlighting such stories.

He said the media should report more about the development programmes taking place.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/11/24/nation/16118578&sec=nation

For what, Pak Lah? Pretending that your underlings said nothing seditious and racist? How can the people 'focus' on development when such statements have greater impact on the nation as a whole? By saying that the media should report more on development programmes, aren't you asking the media "to turn a blind eye" to what have been said by the UMNO delegates?

Isn't it a police state when a leader dictates what the media should and should not publish?

If you noticed what Pak Lah had said in the article, you will find that he did not say anything about the statements of the delegates themselves - instead, he is effectively silencing the media by saying that they should stop playing up racial issues (which, I must add, important in exposing what imbeciles those who said it were).

Wrong target, Pak Lah.