This speech was given in 1978, but its contents are very much relevant to the people of Malaysia this day and the future. It is important to understand history and its underlying factors before we act and plan for a better future.
MERDEKA DEAL : KEEP THE BARGAIN
The “Magna Carta” for Malaysia’s Independence & Nationhood.
Text of talk by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir bin Shamsuddin at
luncheon meeting of a well known NGO, Malaysia, July 1978
When I was asked to speak at your weekly luncheon meeting by Mr. Rajah, I believed I was expected to speak on Petronas. I do not find my work an interesting subject to talk on and always dismiss it in a few words. Petronas was established to manage the exploitation of our petroleum resources and to develop a Malaysian petroleum industry. It has entered into production sharing agreements with ESSO and Shell, has established Malaysia LNG Sdn. Bhd. and will establish an ASEAN urea plant. It is also planning to participate in upstream and other downstream activities.
2. I consider it more interesting to talk on the “Merdeka Deal : Keep the Bargain”, a title given to a letter addressed by Tan Sri T.H. Tan to the New Straits Times in respect of a talk I gave to open an Inchcape Executive Course. This subject is not known to many and if known it is not fully understood. There is no literature on it and those involved (a few of them only are still living) have not ever spoke publicly on it. I like to refer you to Tan Sri T.H. Tan’s letter which reads :-
“as the then Co-Secretary to the delegation, lead by YTM Tunku Abdul Rahman to the Independence talks in London in 1952/1953 (correctly speaking it should be 1955/1956) I feel obliged, in light of the current misunderstanding over the New Economic Policy (NEP) to write to confirm the explanation given by my then colleague Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin reported in your issue today (NST April 28, 1978). What Tan Sri Kadir said about the quid pro quo (the Malays willingly conceding to make all born in Malaysia citizens on and after August 1957 in exchange for the non-Malays agreeing to uplift the economic and social status of Malays) is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I urge non-Malay Malaysians to do their utmost to keep the bargain. Only thus can a just society emerge in the fullness of time.”
3. Related to this, I like to refer you to a published essay of Dr. Goh Cheng Tiek called “Integration in the Plural Society – The Chinese in Malaysia.” To quote his own words, Dr. Goh Cheng Teik referred to his essay as follows :-
“It is sad and disturbing ... that the spectre of minority nationalism seems to be haunting the Malaysian people again. A few party politicians today are trying to nullify the gains made in the last two decades of independence by urging the Malaysian Chinese to unite on a blatantly communal basis and to fight for narrow, racial rights.
In this brief essay, I intend to state my case against a revival of minority nationalism in Malaysia in whatever form or manifestation. It is utterly self-defeating, even suicidal to advocate, promote or glorify racial unity at this juncture of the nation’s history.”
4. I would suggest to anyone interested in Malaysia’s nationhood to read this paper which contains in interesting viewpoint and some facts which are relevant. For instance, I like to quote what has been stated in respect of the “special position of the Malays.” I quote :-
“Malaysia’s political evolution has been unique. The special position of the Malays, for example, is an intricate concept with a long history behind it. It requires enormous patience and understanding to comprehend it. Malaysian politicians, regardless of party affiliations, have an obligation and duty to explain it lucidly and responsibly so that the people can comprehend it in all its subtlety and do not try it for political gain.”
5. I consider it essential that every Malaysian should know of the “Merdeka Deal” and certain essential provisions of the Constitution which constituted the basic foundation on which Malaysian nationhood was built. I have called this the “Magna Carta” for Malaya’s and ultimately Malaysia’s independence and nationhood.
6. For background information, I like to trace briefly certain facts and events before Merdeka. Before the war there were three colonies in Malaya – Singapore, Penang and Malacca – and nine protected Malay states. Constitutionally, the Rulers of the Malay States enjoyed sovereign status and their subjects were not British subjects but were British protected persons, enjoying certain protection under Her Majesty’s rule.
7. When the Japanese war ended, the British Government established the Malayan Union over the whole of the Malay Peninsula. This turned the Malays States into British colonies and their subjects became subjects of the Queen and deprived our Rulers of their sovereign status. The Malays under the late Datuk Onn’s leadership established United Malay National Organisation and together with the Rulers persuaded the British as to the folly of their action, thus bringing about the signing of a Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, which re-established the status quo and formed a federation of nine protected states and two British colonies.
8. Malayan national consciousness emerged among the Malays before the Japanese war. A few associations, social in form but political in substance, were formed. The establishment of the Malayan Union through a number of McMichael treaties forced on the Rulers to sign enhanced this national consciousness. UMNO, after having successes in re-establishing the status quo in 1948, proceeded with the struggle for independence of Malaya. In the Emergency, which was erupted as a result of Malayan Communist Party terrorism, the Chinese population established the Malaysian Chinese Association as a welfare organisation to help the Chinese who were dislocated resulting from Brigg’s resettlement programme. During the Japanese occupation of Malaya, the Indians established the Malayan Indian Congress to fight for independence of India and this Congress continued to be in existence after the Japanese surrender.
9. The late Datuk Onn conceived of the idea of fighting for the independence of Malaya with the cooperation of the Chinese and Indian population and tried to turn UMNO into a United Malayan National Organisation. His proposal was not acceptable to the Malays; as a result, he left UMNO and established IMP and later on Parti Negara. YTM Tunku took over leadership of UMNO. The British, to show the seriousness of their intention ultimately to give Malaya Independence, established local councils and initiated elections to Town Councils. In a number of Town Council elections, i.e. Johor Bahru, Seremban, Kuantan and finally Kuala Lumpur, the Tunku and the late Tun Tan Cheng Lock allied themselves and their parties in contesting for seats in these Councils. This led to the establishment of the Alliance Party.
10. The Tunku led a mission to England following the success of these elections and through the assistance of Lord Ogmore, a member of the House of Lords and Mr. Proctor, a British Labor MP, persuaded the British Government to hold an election in Malaya in 1955 to a number of seats in the Federal Legislative Council. The Alliance won 51 seats out of 52 seats contested. Following which, the Alliance requested for a mission to talk on the Independence of Malaya with the British Government in the United Kingdom. The British agreed to a mission consisting of four representatives of the Rulers and four representatives of the Alliance. The mission departed for the UK in December 1955. The Rulers representatives included Dato’ Panglima Gantang, Dato’ Nik Kamil, Dato’ Abdul Aziz b. Majid and Dato’ Seth with me as Secretary and the Alliance representatives included YTM Tunku Abdul Rahman, Sir H.S. Lee, Dato’ Abdul Razak and Dr. Ismail with T.H. Tan as Secretary.
11. There is one fact which is not fully known which I consider important to reveal. At the very first meeting of the Rulers’ representatives, the members agreed to advise the Rulers to associate themselves with their people in their struggle for independence but seek for themselves the retention of their prestige, privileges and rights. The Rulers agreed to accept their advice and the Tunku in response turned the mission into a joint one. I can confirm that the mission did work and negotiated with the British as a team and T.H. Tan and I served as joint secretaries. I can quote one instance where Dato’ Seth agreed to an issue discussed contrary to a directive he received from his Sultan.
12. In the talks in London, the British interalia agreed to Malaya being declared Independent on 31st August 1957 and to the appointment of a Constitutional Commission to draft the constitution. The Constitutional Commission led by Lord Reid held a number of public hearings in Malaya and received a number of memoranda including one from the Alliance Party and produced a report in 1957. The members of the Commission included Lord Reid, W.J. Mckell of Australia, Justice Abdul Malek of India, Justice S. Hamid of Pakistan and Sir Jennings.
13. Following the mission talks in London, the Alliance Party established their own constitutional committee to talk among themselves on the proposed constitution. The committee established two sub-committees to consider :-
(i) the national language, the national religion, citizenship and the special position of the Malays;
(ii) the other provisions of the constitution.
(I was a member of both working parties)
14. Citizenship and special position of the Malays were the most important issues. The agreement reached between the leaders of the three races constituted the Magna Carta for independence – T.H. Tan called it the Merdeka Deal.
15. I wish to elaborate on this. The Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, re-established the status quo and as such only subjects of the Rulers and subjects of the Queen were truly nationals. “Citizenship” as established in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 was argued in the talks as a special status which gave certain persons as prescribed in the Agreement a status on whom the government of the day could give such political rights as they may wish to as a matter of grace. In other words, citizenship under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 was not equal to “nationals” or “citizenship” in the strict constitutional sense. So the position in the first working party talks was : the non-Malays asked for a right to acquire citizenship in the same manner as the Malays i.e. on the principle of ‘jus soli’ and ‘jus sanguin’ and for equal civil and political rights after the acquisition of citizenship; the Malays requested the non-Malays to give something to commensurate in return. The Malays settled in Malaya a few thousand years before the large scale immigration of Chinese and Indians. As a result of British intervention in the internal affairs of the Malay States and the appointment of British Advisors or British Residents in the State Capitals to advise the Rulers (their advise should always be sought for and followed), the Chinese and Indians were encouraged to immigrate into Malaya to eke out a living, to develop the tin and rubber industries, to man the government and to make their fortune. The British policy of protection of the Malays resulted in the Malays becoming the most backward socially and economically. This is not surprising : the policy although it has many facets, in short, while favouring the Malays dignitaries of the State, has the objective of keeping the Malays confined to their traditional way of living in the kampongs planting their padi fields and small holdings (mixed) and because of their education being limited to five years of vernacular education, those who migrated to towns only managed to get jobs as office boys, kebuns or car drivers. Of course, there were few exceptions. In other words, the phrase “to protect the special position of the Malays” was given a meaning – the need to put right a wrong committed by the British which benefited the immigrant races. The talks on this subject lasted for more than a year; the members of the working party finally agreed that the request of the non-Malays be conceded to in return for an undertaking by the non-Malays to uplift the socio-economic position of the Malays to bring it a par with the others. In other words, the socio-economic imbalance that existed between the races was recognised and it was agreed that it should be remedied. To do this, it was enshrined in the constitution that it shall be the responsibility of the government to protect the “Special Position of the Malays”, while at the same time “safeguarding the legitimate interest of the non-Malays”, as provided in Article 153.
16. The Reid Constitutional Mission reported in 1957 and put up a draft constitution for the Federation as well as a model constitution for the States. The report has an interesting feature in that there was a minority report which is worth paying attention to. The report brushed over the question of citizenship – there was no attempt made to examine it as I have done, i.e. to distinguish between the two concepts of “subjects of the Rulers and subjects of the Queen” and “citizenship” under the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948”. They brushed over the question of nationality and adopted more or less the agreement of the parties in the Alliance on this subject but ignored their recommendations re the special position of the Malays. As a result, the report was not accepted and further negotiations had to take place – in the Conference of Rulers and between the Alliance and the British Government. Finally, the “Deal” was acknowledged and the draft constitution was revised to adopt word for word the Alliance draft on the special position of the Malays in return for the provisions of citizenship. Thus I have called it the Magna Carta for Independence. I would like to refer those who are interested to read further on this subject to look at :-
(i) Malayan Union, 1945
(ii) Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948
(iii) The Commission Report and Draft Constitutions
(iv) The Government Constitutional Proposals and The
Approved Constitutions.
17. It may be interesting to consider what would be the implication if this agreement was not reached. Would there be no Independence? Perhaps this was unlikely. Would there be agreement to some deferred form of jus soli and jus sanguine; perhaps this was likely. In fact that was the rule in Ceylon (Sri Langka) then. Would there be different classes of citizenship with unlike rights, political or otherwise as you find today in Saudi Arabia? Would there be less citizens today? This would be obvious if citizen laws were different. What if the government were to treat citizens and non-citizens differently which in fact does happen today as you will find it in a country nearby?
18. What is the most significant factor in this deal? On the one hand, one party obtained a right, invaluable and irrevocable on Independence Day. And on the other hand, the other party obtained only a promise, an undertaking which can only be implemented by the government but the government is elected by the electorate five-yearly if not lesser. If the electorate were not aware of this deal and even if it were aware and they do not consider themselves bound by it, what would be the outcome? Even if the government honour it, can they implement it without the sincere cooperation of the people? I like to refer you to a manifesto purported to be prepared by a Chinese and addressed to the Chinese population as a whole before the last general elections; I believed it is now banned. It exhorts the Chinese to unite and by whatsoever means to wrest from the Malays such political power as they may now have to support the economic power the Chinese now enjoy so as to keep suppressing the Malays down. God forbid! To see the other side of the coin one should read Dr. Goh Cheng Teik’s thesis and pay heed to his warning.
19. Has the “Deal” been kept? The government has been formed by the Alliance Party with effect from 1957 and the party in power today is still in the form of an alliance i.e. the National Front. I like to refer to the First Malayan Five-year Development Plan which was followed by the 2nd and 3rd Malayan Five-year Development Plan after Independence. They had no visible effect in correcting the economic imbalance; please refer to the findings of Dr. Goh in his essay. In the 1969 elections, nasty statements were made manifesting that the “Deal” has been forgotten and these caused the May 1969 riots.
20. Following the riot, a State of Emergency was declared and a National Operation Council (N.O.C.) was established to run the government; it was a super authority superimposed on the existence Cabinet System. Some say “Democracy was dead”; I was a member of the National Operation Council and often retorted that if democracy means a government according to the will of the majority, it was much alive and effective. The N.O.C. was able to give effect to a government according to the will of the majority which in essence is the objective of democracy. It saw the birth of Rukun Negara and the New Economic Policy. One of the two pronged objectives of the New Economic Policy is the eradication of poverty; if one has to struggle for livelihood, one would have no time for ideals. The second objective is the restructuring of society and the purpose is to correct the socio-economic imbalance between the races by moving the Malays from the traditional rural sector and the traditional urban sector into the modern rural and modern urban sectors and also to train them for the higher appointments in the government sector and thereby enable them to be more productive and earn more income and generate savings.
21. It is gratifying to note that the National Front has been returned with a fresh mandate to pursue the programme of national development in accordance with the New Economic Policy. This policy may appear discriminating at times, but if one remember the Merdeka Deal, the need to create a united Malaysian nation, if one remembers that the implementation of the programme correcting the economic imbalance will be in context of an expanding economy and that there is yet plenty for all, you will give the government programme the understanding it requires, if not a full support.
22. To conclude, I like to quote an interview between Tun Tan Siew Sin and members of Chinese Chambers of Commerce immediately after the May 1969 riot; he said, “Would the Malays care if the whole of KL were burnt? If not, why don’t you give them stake in the city!”
23. To conclude may I say I hope I have given you a idea of the significance of the Merdeka Deal any why it should determine the role of government for the next generation or two.
Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin
Kuala Lumpur
July 1978
