POSITION OF MALAY RULERS



The question should be, when was the position of the Malay Rulers, subverted?

All that we have to do is to take a look back into history.

As recorded in history, there were constant civil wars and dynastic quarrels, under the feudal style of rule. At the same time there was a mass of Chinese immigration into Malaya. This resulted in rapid economic expansion and social changes.

Under the Pangkor Engagement1874,Perak accepted a British Resident. The style of British intervention was subsequently accepted by all the other States of Malaya. The British policy of intervention was to encourage Chinese immigration with the primary aim that the Chinese labour and their investments, would stimulate, the Malay States to progress economically and socially. That is how Malaya became the world’s largest tin miner and exporter.

Even at that point of time the Malays opposed the British Policy. Contrary to the opposition of the policy, the Malays benefitted from the ensuring economic progress.

An interesting point which has to be noted, is that, even before the Pangkor Engagement of 1874, the Malays had the institution of the “KAPITAN CINA”. The most famous Kapitan was none other than “YAP AH LOY” of Kuala Lumpur. Why did the Malay Ruler of Selangor ” INSTITUTIONALIZE” Kapitan Cina?

During this period of the British Rule until some form of written Constitution was introduced, Malaya was indirectly Ruled by the Secretary of State in London and the Governor of the Straits Settlement.

It is also recorded that the Malay Political system was more democratic, prior to the British intervention. When major decisions were to be taken, it was only taken after a mass meeting of 100 or more Chiefs were held over many days of deliberation.
But yet the Malay Rulers accepted the Rule of the British, which watered down their position and authority.

So now comes the “crunch” of the matter!

On 12.06.2009 the Sultan of Perak said: “practice which deviated from the principles of justice should not be allowed to take place because every legitimate citizen should be accorded appropriate justice.”

Is this a good quality of behaviour and does it fall within the boundary of morality?

The choice is for each reader to make.

Article 153 (2) which is subject to Article 40 relates to the function of the King. Further, the issues in Article 153(2) relates to ” special privileges in respect of education and permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business”.

These ” privileges” are a minor issue. The world is concerned with a bigger “PICTURE”.

Are the people of Perak not legitimate citizens that should be accorded appropriate justice to choose their State Government?

IT IS THE POLITICAL RAPE OF THE PERAK STATE ASSEMBLY, THAT IS OF PARAMOUNT INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE TO BE ACCORDED JUSTICE AND NOT MINOR “PRIVILEGES”.

Advertisements

One Response to “POSITION OF MALAY RULERS”

  1. boscopa Says:

    Yes, i am the author of this post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: