Remembering The Naning Wars

If you read the history of Malaysia, many of us would know that the first resurgence of the British occupancy in Malaya came from a man named Dol Said. Dol Said or in full Dato' Abdul Said was a 19th century Malay leader of an area called Naning, which was then part of Malacca on the Malay Peninsula. He opposed taxation by the British's taxation policy in the area and refused to pay it. This was a direct cause of a conflict known as the Naning War. (source: wikipedia)

The Naning War is fought by Dol Said and his men through mainly guerilla tactics and also with aid from other Malay allies such as Seri Menanti, Sungai Ujong, Johol and Muar. These unity and some brilliant tactics by Dol Said have made Naning impenetrable. The British have sent huge amount of soldiers to recapture Naning but has been defeated in each battle.

The British in realising their defeat changed their tactics. They realise that the united front of Dol Said and his allies was the main reason they cannot recapture Naning. They then conspired with Yamtuan Muda Raja Ali in Rembau and also with other Malay alllies that once supported Dol Said. Rembau have also agreed to send 600 troops to assist British in attacking Naning. In a battle led by Colonel Herbert, the British finally secured victory as all the Malay allies have betrayed Dol Said and sided with the British. The battle have forced Dol Said to retreat to Sri Menanti before surrendering himself, effectively ending the war. British then combined Malacca and Naning. Dol said was given a home in Malacca.

Dol Said and the people of Naning was betrayed by the Malays of Rembau. The Rembau Malays and their descendants now enjoying the spoils of war and from the blood shed by the people of Naning.

Naning war have shown us that with a united front, we can defeat the enemy no matter how big they are. British at that time was a super power with empire spanning around the globe but was defeated by Dol Said and his men. They only lost because of the betrayal of their own people. This same pattern can be found in many countries histories. In one hand, you have this true freedom fighter and a leader who wants nothing but freedom for the country. In another hand, you have leaders who turns greedy and willing to sacrifice their country as long as their pockets and interests are well been taken care of.

And I am pretty sure also that here in the present day of Malaysia, we do have politicians and leaders who would willing to sell the country to foreign powers as long as their greedy needs is being taken care of. Honestly, we are witnessing it right now in our current political scenario. So, it is our job to make sure these kind of leaders do not get elected or stay in the corridor of power. God bless Malaysia.

Article 153 - To be or not to be

Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia grants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) responsibility for safeguarding the rights and privileges of the Malay and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia, collectively referred to as Bumiputra. The article specifies how the federal government may protect the interest of these groups by establishing quotas for entry into the civil service, public scholarships and public education. It is often considered to be part of the social contract, and is commonly cited as a legal defense of ketuanan Melayu — the belief that the Malays are the "masters" (tuan) of Malaysia. - Source: Wikipedia

So, based on the facts above what can we conclude? The article was drafted back in 1957 where at that time, most chinese and Indian population were immigrants. Malay rulers back then questioned the loyalty of chinese and indians. In trying to understand the reality back then, just imagine that you are an owner of a big house with big families. The house was built by your great, great grandfather and was passed down through past generation until now. Even all the things inside the house was either yours or was inherited. But due to some technical reasons, your house was being takeover by a third party. This third party starts to rent out the rooms in the house to people you don't know. Like it or not, you have to accept the people because the house is no longer yours. So, life goes on. You mind your own business, the guest in the house mind theirs. And suddenly, the third party decides to give back the house to you. With all the excitement in the world you accept that decision. Merdeka!! you said. But wait, what about this people that the third party have brought in? They starting to grow in numbers. What do you do? Throw them out? But they have been quite useful in the house. The rent money from them is also a bonus. You can use the money to renovate the house. So, the logical decision is to let them stay. BUT, with a condition. The guest must always acknowledge that the house is yours and not to touch your things. You do your own business and the guest do theirs. And any priviledge to use the television or bathroom must be given to you first as you are the owner of that stuff. It sounds fair right. That is how I view how the article 153 came about. It is the most logical decision to make at that time.

BUT, that's 50 years ago. It has been a long time. The house has become bigger and better than before. Any repairs and renovation in the house is done together with you and your guest. The guest has now become somewhat of a extended family to you. Now, is it fair to treat your guest as a status of a guest eventhough they have been with you through ups and downs for 50 years? You and your family still have the priviledge for the use of television and bathroom eventhough the television and bathroom is now brand new and the cost of buying it is shared among you and the guest? It's been 50 years.. and in my personal view.. there should be a new approach for that relationship. It's been 50 years.. Malaysia should have a new approach on its social contract. Don't you think?