Matching Gift Form: Fill & Download for Free

A marketing of perceptions and illusions?The dominant narrative on your first question seems to have been a marketing of perceptions and illusions, so I shall try to address that while I leave others to speculate on the answer – such as the quality of the leaders each country will end up with – to your second ‘hypothetical’ question. There is an imperative, first, to drink deep as reminded by Alexander Pope (1688-1744) for “A little learning is a dangerous thing,” and, second, to consider the matter in the light of the 'Big Picture'.The case of the Mau Mau claimants filed in the high court of London in June 2009 and the related secret Hanslope Park ‘migrated’ archive remind me of the observation of Milan Hubl the Czech historian that transcends time and locale in The Book of Laughter and Forgetting (1981): “The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the [country] will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.”The research by Caroline Elkins, then a Harvard post-graduate student, in the late 1990s in Kenya led first to the filing of the Mau Mau veterans’ case in the high court in London in June 2009 and then to the ‘accidental’ disclosure of an archive of colonial official documents that were first ‘migrated’ from Kenya to Britain in 1963, and then, instead of being handed over as required by the Public Records Act 1958 to the National Archives at Kew in Surrey, deliberately secreted in Hanslope Park, which the FCO shares with intelligence agencies MI5 and MI6 and is home of Her Majesty’s Government Communications Centre (HMGCC) with 16 foot-high fences topped with razor wire. The secrecy allows scope to protect the UK’s image of ‘civilised behaviour’ by way of denials of hidden imperial agenda(s) and to shield the UK government from litigation over official crimes so committed. After four years of dogged courtroom battles which the government lawyers repeatedly denied the claims by the five former prisoners of the 1952 Kenyan emergency, following the Mau Mau Rebellion (1952-1963), of murder and torture by the British colonial government, the turning point came when historians as expert witnesses including Dr Caroline Elkins gave evidence that the government's disclosure of documentation was incomplete, so the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) had to admit to the existence of the secret archive. Even so, Foreign Secretary William Hague rather than to risk having the truth, the whole truth, to be revealed at a full and fair trial after October 2012, opted in June 2013 in the House of Commons in a move of calculated damage control for a settlement out of court.Oxford-educated William Roger Louis, Professor of English History and Culture at the University of Texas at Austin and the editor-in-chief of five-volume The Oxford History of the British Empire, acknowledges on the issue of the ideological manipulation of records, archival erasure and/or documentary destruction thus: “That’s exactly what you would expect of a colonial administration, or any government in particular, including our own. That’s the way a bureaucracy works. You want to destroy the documents that can be incriminating.” (Marc Parry, ‘Uncovering the brutal truth about the British Empire,’ The Guardian, 18 August, 2016) Indeed, it is uncanny and somewhat ‘ironic’ to witness this ‘live demonstration’ of the suppression and manipulation of documentary evidence having taken place in Britain, home to George Orwell, who understood the imperative of resolutely avoiding absorption into what he called “the smelly little orthodoxies which are contending for our souls,” and is better remembered as having coined the aphorism: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”[Sources include: Caroline Elkins, Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya (New York: Owl Books, 2005). The same book is published in the U.K under the parallel title of Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya (London: Jonathan Cape, 2005)BBC News, various issues available onlineKenya: UK expresses regret over abuse as Mau Mau promised payoutMau Mau lawsuit due to begin at high courtUncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc ParryMau Mau case quietly going on in LondonRegardless of what ‘the Hollow Men’ (see the study in the politics of deception by the investigative journalist Nicky Hager, The Hollow Men: A Study in the Politics of Deception (Nelson, New Zealand: Craig Potton Publishing, 2006) with their ‘politically correct’ agenda would have us believe, the history of Malaya/peninsular West Malaysia is different and separate from the history of British North Borneo (renamed Sabah) and the history of Sarawak even after Malaya on the western side of the South China Sea and the Borneo territories on the eastern side of the Sea on the island of Borneo were colonised by Britain. In the wake of these ‘Hollow Men’ comes those akin to propagandists and/or shills who, for nefarious purposes, proceed by sheer repetitive assertions of ‘the conflation’ of the ‘Hollow Men’ to manipulate the perception of reality and so invent without a skerrick of documentation ‘a counterfeit perception of history’ deemed fit for indoctrinating the unsuspecting public. The complete history and the truth of the origins of ‘Malaysia’ would, I suspect, determine the scope and direction of the centrifugal forces will take in the future of Malaysia. In spite of the dictates of ‘political correctness’, there are even now enough telltale ‘indicators’ not to rule out the prospects for the Western part of Malaysia and the Eastern part of Malaysia to go separate ways in the future and become independent sovereign countries.A definitive history of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia that approaches the ‘truth’, the whole ‘truth’, will not be written until and unless almost all the relevant official documents deposited in the state archives – not counting those deliberately ‘censored’ for destruction by water or fire – as Caroline Elkins discovered in Kenya – have been released after the 30-year limit rule. Critical and painstaking research can persuade history to yield however reluctantly enough of its truth that will challenge and revise, if not upend, conventional history and the official narrative.(A) It is more likely for the conception of ‘our grand design’ to have originated in Whitehall(London) as early as 1953 than – as conventional history would have us believe – for the proposal of the ‘Malaysia merger’ to have sprung full-blown on May 27, 1961, from the head of Tunku Abdul Rahman at the Foreign Correspondents’ Association Club in Singapore like the mythical Athena from the head of Zeus.Dr Greg Poulgrain the Australian historian makes a vital contribution to the formation narrative by drawing attention to the shadowy yet critical but hitherto largely unknown role played by the Deep State of the British Establishment in the shaping the final configuration of the Federation. To ensure that [political control of Sarawak] was met, the “second-in-command of MI5 of Britain was seconded for one year’s term of duty to reorganise and expand the Special Branch”. The ‘political engineering’ by the Deep State was firmly in place with the penetration – unbeknownst to the leader A.M. Azahari – of Partai Rakyat Brunei (PRB) at the executive level by agents-informers of the Special Branch. This penetration would later allow Roy Henry of the Special Branch to engineer a ‘false flag’ operation in the Brunei Rebellion in late 1962. In his candid admission in 1991 to Poulgrain, Roy Henry of the Special Branch of Sarawak and Brunei supplied the key: The Brunei Rebellion also “cemented the relationship between British oil interests and the Brunei Sultan; and it led on to Konfrontasi which forced the decision of Sarawak into joining the proposed Federation of Malaysia.” As well as securing Brunei oil, the rebellion helped to secure the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.” [For a book review of the path-breaking research of Dr Greg Poulgrain in his The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia 1945-1965 (Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2014), see Britain secretly planned M’sia since 1953 | Daily Express Online - Sabah's Leading News Portal ]There appears to be a systematic strategy by the UMNO-dominated Federal Government in Malaya to reduce the status of both Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners of Malaya in the original Malaysia Agreement 1963 to that of the subservient status equivalent to the 11 states brought together in the original Federation of Malaya of August 1957. Dr Michael B. Leigh the Australian political scientist in his symbolically entitled book Rising Moon (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1974)] delineated this as the “Federal UMNO … model [with] a dominant Islamic-led … party” pulling its gravy-train for ‘cronies’ and towards which will gravitate an ambitious ‘Manchurian candidate’ with matching political and religious empathy, willing to be mentored by the UMNO elite in the federal capital until he is ready to be returned to the Borneo territory to do His Master’s bidding. The baleful effects of ‘the musical chairs’ played among these Manchurian candidates in the Borneo states certainly have not endeared those string-pullers to the new generations of Sabahans and Sarawakians. Having grown up from the 1960s to observe, if not to endure, the deleterious effects of institutionalised ethnic and religious discriminations imposed by Malaya on top of the siphoning away of the revenue derived from the natural/mineral resources of the continental shelves of the Borneo states, these Sabahans and Sarawakians at the grassroots have awakened as political observers more astute than their self-serving, if not sycophantic, political party leaders dependent on the largess doled out from the ‘fiefdom’ controlled by their chief political patron.(See examples in ‘Malaysia: The Broken Promise,’ Malaysia: The Broken Promise)They saw the first attempt made in June 1966 when the Federal Government led by UMNO leader and Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman tried to oust Stephen Kalong Ningkan, the first Chief Minister of Sarawak and non-Muslim leader of the Sarawak National Party (SNAP). This attempt by then Governor of Sarawak acting on the instruction of Federal Government was declared by the High Court of Borneo in early September 1966 to be unconstitutional. A week later the Federal Government rode roughshod over the judgement and the constitution by declaring a state of emergency in Sarawak, followed by a special parliamentary session to amend the Sarawak state constitution to give the Governor powers to convene Sarawak’s Legislative Assembly and the discretion to dismiss the chief minister. The amendments were passed, and Sarawak-centric Ningkan was once again ousted as the Sarawak’s chief minister, following a motion of no confidence in the Legislative Assembly. (Margaret Clark Roff, The Politics of Belonging (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1974)The pattern continues with yet another attempt rearing its head in 1976. The Barisan Nasional government under the UMNO leader and Prime Minister Hussein Onn initiated the amendment of Schedule/Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia so that the status each of Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners of Malaya in the original Malaysia Agreement 1963(MA63) was effectively downgraded to that of the 12th and 13th states of Malaysia like any of the 11 states of the Federation of Malaya that in August 1957 had been granted flag-independence by the British.. The promise made in September 2018 by Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad of the newly elected Pakatan Harapan (PH) Government to constitutionally restore the original status of equality to Sabah and Sarawak was not delivered by the time of his resignation in February 2020 which effectively brought down the less-than-2-year old PH Government.(B) The talk of the ‘economic unviability’ of the Borneo territories (except for the oil-rich protectorate Sultanate of Brunei) that was ‘promoted’ in the 1950s and 1960s might well have been a distracting cover-up for something else (see section C below). Had the political leaders of British North Borneo and Sarawak at the time behaved as citizens instead of as naive subjects, they would have realized that the ‘instructions’ the British colonial governors received from Whitehall were driven by British imperial agenda and British interests that did not necessarily coincide with the best interest of the people of either Borneo territory and if they had scrutinised alternative sources of information instead of listening to their colonial masters, they would exposed the ‘say-so’ as an concocted rationalisation, if not an educated guess.Dr Greg Poulgrain’s analysis uncovers that the primary impetus for forming Malaysia was oil, not ethnicity. The real focus was, therefore, on Brunei which Britain was determined to retain as “the biggest single source of dollars in the Stirling area.” The oil industry being under the sole dominion of the Sultan of Brunei, it was to the advantage of the British Malayan Petroleum (BMP), the forerunner to the present Brunei Shell Petroleum Company (BSP) and a subsidiary of the transnational Royal Dutch Shell Group, to continue the one-to-one arrangement to maintain its monopoly.In September 1958, a redefinition of the maritime boundaries by the Queen’s “Order in Council” separated the offshore areas of Brunei from those of North Borneo and Sarawak. From the perspective of the Sultan of Brunei, this timely redefinition of Brunei’s boundaries could only have been interpreted as support for his wish that the sultanate (and with the oilfields) remain distinct from any merger, amalgamation or plan for closer association. Poulgrain continues, “remarkably the boundary line between Brunei and Sarawak deviated in favour of Brunei to include the giant South West Ampa oilfield in Brunei territory, … Even though a solution for the decolonisation of the Borneo territories had not yet been concluded, this arrangement prepared for an eventuality whereby Brunei and its rich offshore prospects would remain under a British monopoly and under a British defence treaty.” Poulgrain’s sources in 1991 confirmed that the huge oilfield was known to the authorities in 1958, years before its ‘official discovery’ in 1963.The British were prepared to surrender the oil in Sarawak territory to the new federation under control of Malaya. Poulgrain noted that the Anthony Abell, the Governor of Sarawak, in April 1956 could admit that Malaya had ‘imperialistic design’ on the Borneo territories. This is, in fact, confirmed many years later by two surprising yet conventional sources. First, Dr Tan Tai Yong, the historian at the National University of Singapore, makes the following assessment in his book, Creating “Greater Malaysia” (2008):“The Tunku was therefore clearly not interested in having Singapore; the real prize he was after was the Borneo Territories, and Singapore was the price he had to pay to secure it. … There was clearly no cultural or social basis for the state; Malaysia was strictly a product of political expediencies.” [emphasis added]The second source is none other than Tunku Abdul Rahman himself, the former Prime Minister of Malaya and then of Malaysia, who in the early 1980s engaged in a series of conversations with Abdullah Ahmad, which was later published in 2016 in a book entitled Conversations with Tunku Abdul Rahman. The Tunku candidly admitted thus:“Yes and they [the British] gave us Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore and so many other things in 1963 [with the formation of Malaysia]. The British could have given Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak independence, but they did not. Instead, they handed them to us.” [emphasis added]Poulgrain observed that the prospects of exchanging the existing colonial master (UK) for another one (Malaya) would certainly not be welcomed by those Sarawakians (and Sabahans) with a historic fear of Malay domination. In fact, by 1949 with the ‘loss of China’, anti-Chinese sentiment in Malaya had become enmeshed with the anti-communism of the Cold War, and spilled over to the Borneo territories. Poulgrain’s research findings have been complemented by the research of Dr Yong Kee Howe when the Malaysian anthropologist-ethnographer refers to “the annexation of Sarawak into [the greater Malaysia Plan] in the context of the Cold War military gift economy.” (Yong Kee Howe, The Hakkas of Sarawak: Sacrificial Gifts in Cold War Era Malaysia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013)(C) That the ‘grand design’ of a federation of British territories as a form of post-war decolonisation was probably, if not certainly, conceived in Whitehall(London) rather originating as a brainwave of a successor-politician who was groomed by the British is reinforced by two other earlier attempts by the British around the same time period at the federation project, which shared similar characteristics and reactions. How each country fared post-federation seems to depend on the quality of the political leadership in charge according to the light from the ‘Big Picture’ perspective via a brief foray into the comparative history of the Central African Federation and the Federation of the West Indies.1. The Central Africa Federation (C.A.F.), also known as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, was the first attempt at federation by the British and lasted from October 1953 to December 1963. It is perhaps more than a coincidence for the recurrence of the years 1953 and 1963 (see section A above).that mark the duration of the federation of the British protectorate of (Northern) Rhodesia, the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia, and the protectorate of Nyasaland.Southern Rhodesia, governed by a white settler minority, was the dominant of the three territories, so the prime minister of Southern Rhodesia was appointed the prime minister of CAF for 3 years. For Sir Geoffrey “Huggins and the Rhodesian establishment, the central economic motive behind the CAF had always been the abundant copper deposits of Northern Rhodesia.” (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland - Wikipedia)Throughout the 1950s policies in the federation were seen to be largely to the advantage of the white population of the south. The majority of the blacks in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland consistently opposed the federation, resulting in a declaration of a state of emergency when many nationalists including Dr Hastings K. Banda, the leader of then Nyasaland African National Congress (NANC), were detained without trial. [Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland | political unit]“By 1962 the British and the CAF cabinet had had agreed that Nyasaland should be allowed to secede” from the federation. [Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland - Wikipedia ]It was announced on February 1, 1963, that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland would be broken up. In July 1964, Nyasaland achieved independence within the British Commonwealth as the Republic of Malawi. Dr Banda became Prime Minister of Malawi and then in 1966, following a constitutional change, the President of Malawi.In October1964 Northern Rhodesia became independent as the Republic of Zambia with copper as its main export nationalised in 1982. Kenneth Kaunda, who led the Zambian African National Congress (ZANC) and then the United National Independence Party (UNIP), was imprisoned in 1955 for opposing CAF and again in June 1959, became the first President of Zambia (1964-1991).In November 1965, the white settlers in the colony of Southern Rhodesia announced a Unilateral Declaration of Independence from the U.K. and in 1970 became as republic. The 1976 rapprochement between Joshua Nkomo (of the Ndebele ethnic minority) of Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and Robert Mugabe (of the Shona ethic majority) of Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) led to the formation of the Patriotic Front (PF), which received frontline support from Rhodesia’s black majority-ruled neighbours. By 1979 the combination of escalating fighting and other pressures forced Prime Minister Ian Smith of Southern Rhodesia to accept the necessity of an “internal settlement.” At the Lancaster House conference in London in late 1979, Britain briefly retook control of Southern Rhodesia as a colony until a new round of elections was held in February 1980. Having won the majority of the 80 contested black seats, Mugabe of ZANU (now using the name ZANU-PF) became the first prime minister as Zimbabwe achieved an internationally recognized independence in April 1980.2. Based on the British Caribbean Federation Act 1956, the Federation of the West Indies (FWI), also known as the West Indies Federation (January 1958-May 1962) was made up of 10 British island-territories in the West Indies as constituent provinces.Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Barbados were the principal members of the Federation which included Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Montserrat, Dominica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, and Grenada. Although Britain intended that the FWI would shortly become a fully independent state in 1962, the project never achieved full sovereignty.Jamaica had joined the Federation because its leaders had believed that the West Indies would quickly be granted independence, but nearly three years after its formation, this had not occurred while other smaller British colonies like Cyprus and Sierra Leone had gained independence. Many Jamaicans believed that the island should seek independence in its own right. In September 1961 a referendum in the province of Jamaica on political secession from the FWI passed with 54% of the vote. Alexander Bustamante of the Jamaica Labour Party defeated Norman Manley of the People’s National Party and the province's Chief Minister in the island elections in April 1962, and became the first Prime Minister of an independent Jamaica in August 1962. Jamaica was the most populous and prosperous province.Trinidad and Tobago followed suit when in January 1962, the People's National Movement led by Dr Eric Williams, Chief Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, passed a resolution rejecting any further involvement with the Federation. Williams himself stated that without Jamaica, no Federation was possible. Trinidad and Tobago became independent on August 31, 1962. (West Indies Federation - Wikipedia)The FWI was legally dissolved in May 1962 with the Parliament of the United Kingdom's West Indies Act 1962. The remaining "Little Eight" provinces once again became separate colonies supervised directly from London, most of which became independent later on:Barbados – 1966Grenada – 1974Dominica – 1978Saint Lucia – 1979St Vincent and the Grenadines – 1979Antigua and Barbuda – 1981Saint Kitts and Nevis – 1983© Syn Chew