America’s Vanishing Middle Class

Tweet

E.D. Kain, Contributor




Any analysis of wages earned in prior decades and wages earned today needs to take into account the fact that a lot of non-white-males have entered the workforce. Still, these are troubling numbers from John Cassidy of The New Yorker:

Median earnings for full-time, year-round male workers: 2010—$47,715; 1972—$47,550. That not a typo. In thirty-eight years, the annual earnings of the typical male worker, adjusted to 2010 dollars, have risen by $165, or $3.17 a week.

If you do the comparison with 1973 it is even worse. The figure for median earnings of full-time male workers in that year (when O. J. rushed two thousand yards and Tony Orlando had a chart-topper with “Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree”) was $49,065. Between now and then, Archie Bunker and Willie Loman have suffered a pay cut of more than twenty-five dollars a week.

Now check out this chart from Mother Jones:


The gap is only growing wider, and the structural issues at the heart of the gap are becoming more entrenched in this current recession. The problem isn’t with income inequality per se. There will always be income inequality, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing so long as the people at the bottom aren’t living in poverty. The problem is that you reach a certain point where income inequality becomes a destabilizing force both economically and politically.




And while a number of consumer goods have gotten cheaper over the years – like personal computers and all the stuff you can waste time with online – important and essential items like healthcare have gotten much, much more expensive:



Now we can quibble about why costs have risen so much, and really there’s a number of reasons. If you want an in-depth look at those reasons, you should read Aaron Carroll’s series on health costs. One way or another we’re talking about a major expense for middle and working class people, and that’s on top of growing education and housing costs. The big essentials are breaking the bank for many Americans, even if we can afford refrigerators and flat screen televisions.

Does this mean we need more regulation or less? Does it mean we need higher taxes and more redistribution? I would propose a grand bargain along these lines:

• Let’s deregulate the economy as much as possible, eliminating barriers to entry from as many fields as possible, and allowing the DIY economy to flourish. This includes a bunch of supply side stuff in the health sector.
• Let’s do away with the corporate income tax altogether to encourage domestic investment, especially since this tax is just passed along to consumers.
• Let’s reform the progressive tax code to be way more progressive – especially on the top tiers. The top earners in this country can afford to spread the wealth around.
• Let’s get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA and replace them with straight-up single payer health insurance for everyone. Simplify and save money in the process. Take the burden off of employers.
• Let’s let markets do their thing and public options do theirs. We don’t need Romney’s “unemployment accounts” – unemployment insurance works just fine. I’d be more sanguine about private savings accounts if markets weren’t so prone to crashing, but as it stands Social Security just needs some tinkering to be perfectly sustainable.
• We should invest more in our public institutions, from schools to universities to public libraries. We should also invest a lot in our public infrastructure, and we should use higher fossil fuel taxes to make those investments.

That’s a broad sketch – and I do mean sketch – of my basic blueprint for market-social-democracy (or something like it). Less government in how we actually interact with people, whether that’s running a business out of our home or smoking marijuana, coupled with a more focused public sector geared toward providing basic services (transit, healthcare, education, etc.).

Oh, and quit spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on war. Keep those dollars here in America and put them to better use. We can defend our country just fine without getting our nose in everybody else’s business.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Asian wealth to triple by 2015

Image via Wikipedia
Tweet

By JOHN LOH  johnloh@thestar.com.my

Boom seen coming from property, manufacturing, commodity sectors

KUALA LUMPUR: The wealth in Asia will triple by 2015 to US$15.8 trillion, according to the findings of the recently-published Asia Wealth Report by private Swiss bank Julius Baer.

The report, done in collaboration with brokerage and investment group CLSA, also estimates that the current 1.15 million high net worth individuals (HNWI) across Asia will double to 2.82 million by 2015.

China alone is estimated to hold 55.4% of this wealth in 2015 and will have 49.6% of the total HNWI.
In 2011 and 2012, China and India are forecast to contribute to over 40% of global gross domestic product (GDP).

The report was commissioned with the aim of investigating the key drivers of wealth creation in the Asia Pacific region and the future size of the HNWI market by country.

Speaking to StarBizWeek at the sidelines of the Forbes Global CEO Conference, Julius Baer Asia CEO Dr Thomas Meier said the wealth would come from a diverse spectrum of industries, primarily property, manufacturing (for fast-moving consumer goods and information technology) and commodities (palm oil and coal).



In terms of the investment portfolios of the HNWI in the study, Meier said they noticed a trend of high allocation of equity holdings, which would appear to run counter to the current pessimism in global stock markets.

He said equity investments were recommended, adding that the bank's optionality products capitalised on the volatility of the stock market and allowed investors to enter at attractive prices.

On whether Asia's growth was sustainable, Meier said: “We believe the economic fundamentals of Asia are strong and robust, and this will eventually translate to wealth creation. We are not in a bubble the growth of Asia was a normal evolution process.”

When asked if Asia's boom would eventually sputter out, Meier said the economy was indeed cyclical, but noted that “this is the decade for Asia, and in this current global scenario, we believe Asia has the potential to absorb any shocks to the world economy.”

Julius Baer Singapore CEO David Lim, who was present at the interview, added: “Asia's fundamentals were not developed overnight, and it will not change overnight. It has been an accretive process over the years, and that is why we claim it to be sustainable.”

Malaysia was part of the study as well, and the report found that by 2015, the country's HNWI should increase to 68,000 from 32,000 currently, while the stock of wealth would grow to US$330bil from US$142bil.

Lim said Malaysia could maintain positive GDP growth through to 2015, external factors notwithstanding.
Key for Malaysia's continued growth, he said, was to ensure sustainable GDP growth, keep its focus on the new economic areas set by the Government, and maintain a stable currency.

Competitiveness should be increased by improving productivity, and not by devaluing the currency, he added.

Of note also is the forecast that Indonesia will have the highest growth rate, vis-a-vis its Asian neighbours, in terms of the number of HNWI over the five-year period with 25%, rising to 99,000 with a total wealth of US$487mil.

Switzerland-listed Julius Baer, whose origins dating back to 1890, is a private banking group which focuses on servicing and advising private clients.

The Millenium generation and the challenge for social stability

Tweet

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG

AS we enter into autumn, 2011 is turning out to be quite a year. Who would have thought that the immolation of a jobless Tunisian graduate in December 2010 would have sparked off the Arab Spring, with uprisings in North Africa and Middle East and now a variant has appeared in Britain?

Other than the social unrest fermented by unemployed youth upset with government corruption and inability to create jobs, the common element was the use of the social media. Even the Chinese high speed train crash in Wenzhou sparked off microblogging that spread the news faster than before. Twitter, Facebook, Google and mobile phone texting have changed the nature of news transmission and the whole governance structure globally.
Image via Wikipedia

Human behaviour reacts to new information, hence our obsession with breaking news. We need information to plan, respond and act.

Traditionally, the control of news and information was confined to a relatively small number of powerful newspaper groups around the world or government media. Radio and television changed the game, but the information was essentially one way. News feed meant news was fed to the consumer. Advertising was about promoting products and services and conveying information to the user.

Society became concerned about the use and misuse of information, hence the intense debate about control of media and freedom of information.



With the arrival of the Internet and social media technology, information became two-way. Two simultaneous events happened with the arrival of social media, both of which are totally new and not fully understood.

First, information became available, faster and more comprehensive to more people than ever thought possible. Papers like the News of the World were considered successful if they sold more than one million copies daily. A successful book would sell 100,000.

However, today, there are five billion mobile phones in use, compared with just over six billion people. More and more people everywhere are connected to the Internet. Every month more than 30 billion pieces of content are shared on Facebook. Twitter can reach millions instantaneously.

Second, because millions of people can receive news simultaneously, they can react synchronously. This is the rise of flash news and flash mobs. The news feedback mechanism has moved from months to nano-seconds.

Governments which had time to react to news, now have no time at all to understand and respond to instant public opinion or even sudden appearance of thousands on social protest.

When someone rich and famous like Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, there was almost instant decision on the Web whether he was guilty or not.

In the past, legal justice could have the pretense that the jury should not be biased by newspaper comment. Today, there are no “clean” decisions everyone is affected by the public opinion.

There are several serious implications for the media industry and social governance.

In economic terms, the traditional print media is suffering in the advanced countries. The good news is that print media is still growing in the emerging markets, as less access to Internet and a rising young population look voraciously for news.

More and more people are turning to instant news on their mobile phone and the Web. The bad news is that with instant news are instant judgements Like or Do Not Like. The fates of major social events are no longer judged by Royal Commissions of Inquiry, but by 140 character limit of news transfer by Twitter or other micro-blogs.

The events and responses of daily life are now black and white, demanding instant solution, not complex matters of grey requiring careful analysis and cautious response.

Thus, in many ways, the world has moved into a multi-dimensional complex transformation, facing simultaneously forces of demographics (more and more younger people and at the same time ageing people), urbanisation, industrial transformation, dramatic technology advances and the visible effects of climate warming and natural disasters.

Hence, mankind is facing changes in the natural environment even as we are confronting massive social change. But the most profound change is the great divide in the inter-generational understanding of each other.

The baby boomers of my generation marched in the streets in 1968 to demand greater social equality, including gender and racial equality. We were less than 5% of our age group who went to university. We were an elite.

Today, the baby boomers (those born after World War II) are beginning to retire. They have become the establishment.

University or tertiary education has become much more broad-based. More than half the population of the world is under the age of 21. The protesters in the Arab Spring or the rioters in Britain represent a generation different from their political leaders.

The new generation has largely grown up not in an age of war, but in an age of global peace. But the biggest challenge for social stability is the challenge of jobs for Gen Y or the Millenium generation, people born around the turn of the century.

In China, there is general acceptance of the fact the post 1980 generation (after the implementation of the one-child policy) has social behaviour different from those when families were multi-children.

In the next 15 years, more than 700 million young people will enter the labour force, of whom 300 million will come from Asia.

Already, the International Labour Organisation estimates that there are roughly 100 million unemployed people in Asia, before the global financial crisis.

If we cannot create enough jobs despite massive fiscal deficits and industrial restructuring, expect more social disruption from the new generation.

Andrew Sheng is president of the Fung Global Institute.

Malaysia to relax strict security laws; a right move, a new dawn beckons; Thumbs up for ISA move!

Tweet

Malaysia to relax strict security laws

Eileen Ng AP

Malaysia plans to abolish two unpopular security laws allowing detention without trial and relax other measures curbing the media and the right to free assembly, Prime Minister Najib Razak says.

Video: http://bcove.me/pke9h9mj
PM announces repeal of ISA, three Emergency proclamations.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced on Thursday that several draconian laws including the ISA and the three Emergency proclamations are to be repealed under major civil liberty reforms.

The policy changes are the boldest announced by Najib since he took the helm in April 2009 and are seen as a move to bolster support for his ruling coalition ahead of general elections, which are not due until 2013 but are widely expected next year.

Najib says heading toward a more open democracy is risky but crucial for his government's survival.



Malaysia plans to abolish two unpopular security laws allowing detention without trial and relax other measures curbing the media and the right to free assembly, Prime Minister Najib Razak says.

The policy changes are the boldest announced by Najib since he took the helm in April 2009 and are seen as a move to bolster support for his ruling coalition ahead of general elections, which are not due until 2013 but are widely expected next year.

Najib says heading toward a more open democracy is risky but crucial for his government's survival.

"There may be short-term pain for me politically, but in the long-term the changes I am announcing tonight will ensure a brighter, more prosperous future for all Malaysians," Najib said in a nationally televised speech on Thursday.

Critics who have long accused the government of using the security laws to stifle dissent cautiously welcomed the announcement but said they would have to wait to see what the measures are replaced with before assessing the reforms.

Lim Kit Siang, who heads the opposition Democratic Action Party, said he wondered if Najib's move was an election ploy.

"We see this as a victory of the people in demanding for greater democracy and respect of human rights, but the question is will he walk the talk?" Lim said.

Najib said the colonial-era Internal Security Act and the Emergency Ordinance, which allow indefinite detention without trial, would be abolished and replaced with new anti-terrorism laws that would ensure that fundamental rights of suspects are protected. He pledged that no individuals would be detained for their political ideologies.

Najib said police laws would also be amended to allow freedom of assembly according to international norms.

The government will also do away with the need for annual printing and publishing licenses, giving more freedom to media groups, he said.

"It is time for Malaysians to move forward with new hope," he said. "Let there be no doubt that the Malaysia we are creating is a Malaysia which has a functional and inclusive democracy."

The prime minister's speech was to mark Friday's anniversary of the 1963 union of peninsula Malaysia with Sabah and Sarawak states on Borneo, six years after the country's independence from British rule.

Najib's National Front has been working to regain public support after suffering its worst performance in 2008 polls, when opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's alliance wrested more than one-third of Parliament's seats amid public allegations of government corruption and racial discrimination.

The National Front's popularity recently took a dip after authorities arrested more than 1600 demonstrators and used tear gas and water cannons against at least 20,000 people who marched for electoral reforms in Kuala Lumpur on July 9.

Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh, who heads the Abolish ISA Movement, asked if the two new laws to be introduced would also provide for detention without trial.

He estimated there are still some 30 people held under the ISA and another 6000 under the Emergency Ordinance, and called for their immediate release.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Najib announces major changes in controversial laws as Malaysia Day gifts

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysians received a significant Malaysia Day present in the form of greater civil liberties and democratic reforms under sweeping changes announced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

Saying that the country is evolving and the people wanted more freedom, Najib outlined the historic announcement in his Malaysia Day eve address that was telecast live on TV.

The changes, he stressed, were to accommodate and realise a mature, modern and functioning democracy; to preserve public order, enhance civil liberty and maintain racial harmony.

All these changes will need to be tabled in Parliament.

Six of the best

>The Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 will be repealed.

- In its place, two new laws will be enacted to safeguard peace and order the detention period will be reduced and can only be extended by the courts, except in cases involving terrorism.

>Three remaining emergency proclamations to be lifted are:
- Emergency 1969, Emergency 1966 (Sarawak) and Emergency 1977 (Kelantan).

>Banishment Act 1959 will also be repealed.

>The annual licence renewal requirement for newspapers and publications will be replaced with a one-off permit by reviewing the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.

>Reviewing the Restricted Residence Act 1933.

>Allowing greater freedom to assemble by reviewing Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 by taking into consideration Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees every citizen with the right to freedom of speech and assembly

A New Dawn beckons

REFLECTING ON THE LAW  By Shad Saleem Faruq iwww.thestar.com.my

The Prime Minister’s announcement on a number of changes to the country’s laws, including ending the Emergency, will have massive positive implications.

 

THE Prime Minister’s speech last night evoked the kind of hope and exhilaration I felt many decades ago on August 28, 1963, when I heard American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. deliver his “I have a dream” speech at the steps of Lincoln Memorial, Washington DC.

The Prime Minister pointed to a number of changes that he intends to bring to the country. Many of these proposals will have massive positive implications for the country’s legal system, its administration of justice and the sovereignty of law over personal discretion. He promised that:

•  The emergency proclamations that are in operation will be presented to Parliament for annulment;

•  The Internal Security Act will be repealed but replaced with two security laws framed under the Constitution’s anti-subversion provision of Article 149;

•  The Restricted Residence Act and the Banishment Act will be brought to an end; and

•  The much-criticised Printing Presses and Publications Act will be amended.

It will take some time and considerable research to fathom the full implications of the above pronouncements. Needless to say, the impact on the legal life of the community, the rights of the citizens, the powers of the Home Minister and the Police will be monumental.

The Rule of Law will be strengthened and the days of the omnipotence of the Government will come to an end. Looking at the implications of the lifting of the Emergency, the following salient features of emergency laws must be noted:

Ordinary legal system eclipsed: Under Article 150, once a proclamation of emergency by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is gazetted, the floodgates are lifted and legislative powers of Parliament are greatly broadened. Parliament can make laws that violate, suspend or bypass any constitutional provision except six items in Article 150(6A).

All fundamental rights except freedom of religion can be violated. The federal-state division of powers can be disturbed and state powers usurped.

Emergency laws do not require a two-thirds majority. Neither do they require the consent of the Conference of Rulers or the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and Sarawak.

Judicial review on constitutional grounds is ousted because of Article 150(6).An emergency law has no time limit and can continue as long as the emergency lasts.

Malaysia has been under such a state of emergency continuously since 1964. For all practical purposes, an emergency legal system eclipsed the ordinary legal system for the last 47 years.

The King’s power to make laws: As with the powers of Parliament, the powers of the federal executive are immensely enlarged during an emergency.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong acquires plenary and parallel ordinance-making powers under Article 150(2B) as long as the two houses of Parliament are not sitting concurrently.

The executive’s power of ordinance-making is as large as Parliament’s power of legislation. The entire Constitution can be suspended except for six topics in Article 150(6A).

Since 1964, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has promulgated nearly 92 emergency ordinances. Among these is the Emergency, Public Order and Prevention of Crime Ordinance, which is a favourite with the police and which results in more preventive detentions than even the Internal Security Act.

Executive power to give instructions: Under Article 150, the Federal Government acquires powers to give directions to the states in contradiction with the meticulous federal-state division of powers. If the emergency proclamations are repealed, what effect will that have on the legal system?

Restoration of normal laws: If the two proclamations of national emergency in 1964 and 1969 are repealed, the country will return to the normal operation of the constitutional system.

The five or so emergency laws made by Parliament under the authority of these proclamations will cease to operate. Any detention under these laws will have to be terminated.

Emergency ordinances will end: As with the emergency laws enacted by Parliament, the 90 or so emergency ordinances promulgated by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (and the hundreds of subsidiary laws made thereunder) will also cease operation.

However, the cessation of emergency laws is not immediate. Under Article 150(7), there is a grace period of six months during which the emergency laws may still continue to operate. Once the six months expire, the expiry of the laws is automatic and no individual repeal is necessary. However, no action (e.g. for damages) can be taken for anything validly done under previous laws.

Some may wonder whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, in his discretion, may refuse the Prime Minister’s advice to restore the Rule of Law and to lift the proclamations of emergencies?In a long line of other cases, it has been held that emergency rule does not alter the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as a constitutional monarch bound to act on advice.

The case of PP v Mohd Amin Mohd Razali (2000) altered the law slightly: it held that during the dissolution of Parliament, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not bound by the caretaker government’s advice on emergency matters.

Amin is, of course, not relevant to the Prime Minister’s speech last night because Parliament is not under dissolution and the Prime Minister’s advice is binding on the King.

Judicial review strengthened: The lifting of the Emergency will remove the eclipse of ordinary laws. The possibility of judicial review of executive and legislative measures will be enhanced. Many human rights will be restored.

The demise of hundreds of emergency laws, some conferring preventive detention powers and others excluding due process, will be a defining moment for Malaysian democracy.

However, the euphoria that is bound to be felt as a result of these wholesome developments must be tempered with caution.

New proclamations: The lifting of the 1964 and 1969 emergencies does not prevent the re-issuing of a new proclamation of emergency and the promulgation of new emergency Acts and ordinances, if circumstances so demand.

Subversion laws stay: Even if the Emergency is lifted, Parliament is still armed with anti-subversion powers under Article 149. New security laws under Article 149 have been suggested by the Prime Minister. Existing laws like the Dangerous Drugs Preventive Measures Act will not be affected by the lifting of the Emergency unless the Government sets about to apply the reformative paint brush to them as well.

Police Act remains: Controversial ordinary laws like the Police Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Universities & University Colleges Act will remain in the statute book though, of course, they will face pressure to accommodate the spirit of the times.

Some may, therefore, regard the lifting of the Emergency as merely a cosmetic measure because Articles 149 and 150 still arm the Government and Parliament with massive power to suspend constitutional guarantees.

Such a perspective is unduly cynical. It amounts to an all-or-nothing attitude. Whatever reforms are adopted and implemented must be welcomed. They may be harbingers of new things to come. They will certainly set a new mood and may be the catalyst and impetus for further improvements to the human rights scene.

A government receptive to the lifting of the Emergency cannot be indifferent to improving the situation of laws under Article 149.

All in all, one must applaud the Prime Minister’s courage, his willingness to listen to the voice of the people, his receptiveness to the felt necessities of the times, and his exhilarating agenda for reform.

The Attorney-General’s office also deserves congratulations for advising the Prime Minister on the incongruence between the rule of law and the state of emergency lasting 47 years.

So, let September 16, 2011 go down in our history as “a joyous daybreak” to end the long night of the Emergency.

Datuk  Prof.Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.

Thumbs up for ISA move

PETALING JAYA: The repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA) is “a breath of fresh air,” said DAP national chairman Karpal Singh.

He also called for the abolishment of the Sedition Act.

“Why is the Sedition Act, enacted by the British in 1948, not one of the laws to be repealed?”

He said this Act was a draconian law which “did not enhance the democratic process”.

He was responding to the Malaysia Day announcement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak regarding the repeal of the ISA.

In its place, Najib said two anti-terror laws would be drawn up to deal with terrorists, violent criminals and subversive elements.

DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang said the Najib administration should “really walk the talk” in providing greater civil liberties.

He said the promised reforms were “proposals” at the moment, adding that he “cautiously welcomed” the move to repeal the ISA.

He would observe the details of the alternative laws drawn up to replace it, he added.

PKR deputy president Azmin Ali suggested that a national consultative council be set up to deliberate on the two new anti-terror laws.

He also recommended that members of the council comprised representatives from the Government, Opposition and non-governmental organisations.

Azmin also urged the Government to release all ISA detainees or bring them to court.

Perkasa secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali said its supreme council would meet tomorrow to discuss the changes.

“We will study why the Government decided to abolish these Acts and see whether it was made for political reasons or for the good of the citizens and country,” he said in a statement here yesterday.

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said he was disappointed that the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 would not be abolished.

“The only part amended is the Section on publications that will no longer need to renew their printing licences annually.

“The other one for printing false news has been retained,” said the DAP secretary-general.

Recent Related Articles:

• Sep 07

  Seeing red over bid to alter history

• Sep 02

  Retract communist remarks, Karpal tells Mat Sabu

• Sep 01

  Retract statement on Bukit Kepong, Karpal tells Mat Sabu

• Aug 30

  Guan Eng advises Pakatan members to ‘zip it’ after row

Najib: Not too early or too late for initiatives to be introduced
The Laws in Question
Hisham: All about the right balance
Move to repeal laws welcomed
What they say
Lawyers, activists hope changes are made fast
Two new laws to replace Internal Security Act
Best piece of news for editors
No more annual licence renewal for newspapers
Newspapers form press council
A joyous daybreak beckons
Make no mistake, these transformations are real 

Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need truly national!

Tweet

Of history and semantics

ALONG THE WATCHTOWER By M.VEERA PANDIYAN
veera@thestar.com.my

According to the country’s history buffs, we were not legally a colony of Britain, but only in effect.
Image via Wikipedia
IT was meant to be good break in Thailand, especially after weeks of scouring stories from dusty, bound copies of The Star for the paper’s 40th anniversary.

The mood in the kingdom, however, has been somewhat sombre, no thanks to the exceptionally bad weather this rainy season.

Floods and landslides have swept across 16 provinces in the country, killing more than 80 people and the death toll is set to rise further.

Even the resort town of Pattaya, which is usually spared from heavy torrents, was flooded over the weekend, along with Krabi, another tourist destination.

The rising waters have also set free potentially man-eating salt water crocodiles from a popular reptile farm, adding to the fears of locals and tourists.

So, there was little choice but to bum it out in Bangkok and keep abreast of the news, especially from back home.

And like always, the wonders never cease.

There was no escape from history and bizarre opinions from people who really should know better.

It was certainly news to read that Malaysia, or to be more precise, Malaya, was never a British colony but only a “protectorate”, as declared by Prof Dr Zainal Kling, a member of the 1,500-strong National Professors’ Council.



He argued that Britain held administrative powers, controlled the money and exploited the country’s natural resources but did not infringe Malay sovereignty in the states – except in the Straits Settlements of Malacca, Penang and Singapore.

Since then, there has been a deluge of comments against his views, along with the usual gnawing doubts about the state of our education system and more so the people who are supposed to be leading it.

But even the country’s most notable historian, Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Khim supported Dr Zainal, stressing that from a legal point of view, Malaya was never colonised.

The British, he said, took part in the administration of the Malay states as a result of treaties with the Rulers.
Dr Khoo said only those born in the Straits Settlements – yours truly from Malacca included – were considered British subjects, while those born in the Malay states were not. (Take note, Hindraf).

So, according to our presumably sage professors, it seems that in the legal sense we were not colonised but, sadly, in effect we were.

As former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohmad said sarcastically:
“The British did not advise, they gave orders.

“The English language is such that the advisers rule and rulers advise.”

Ahmad Fuad Rahmat, a research fellow at the Islamic Renaissance Front explained it vividly in his article in Harakah last week.

“Colonialism involves the exploitation of wealth of a nation – where one country becomes subjugated by the power and authority of another.

“If a country is browbeaten in such a manner, its sovereignty is already violated in effect, no matter what the legal documents say.

“So, Malay sovereignty was not protected under the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 because it gave the British a legal mandate to advise and interfere in local matters.”

As Ahmad Fuad rightly pointed out, sovereignty basically means power; and before independence, it was the British who held absolute power and control of the country.

The debate over the semantics of “colonisation” is of course, a spin-off from the controversy sparked by PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, better known as Mat Sabu.

The Pokok Sena MP was reported to have said during a ceramah in Penang recently that a group of guerillas led by Mat Indera, who killed 25 policemen and their families in the Bukit Kepong tragedy in 1950, were the real heroes because they were fighting against the British.

He was also alleged to have said that Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar and the country’s first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman do not deserve to be called independence leaders because they were British officers.
In Thailand, colonisation, or rather the absence of it, is indeed a big deal.

Among the things that the Thais are very proud of is that they have never been a colony of any Western power.

I suppose one should ignore the fact that Thailand did not exist until 1939. Before that it was Siam, which in its long history, was sacked by the Burmese and Khmers.

But as for recent times past, its kings are credited as being smart – by being neutral instead of taking sides with any European colonial power.

King Chulalongkorn, for example, offered the country as a geographical buffer for the competing colonial interests and, through this, effectively protected the kingdom from foreign meddling.

Earlier this year, the Thai government planned to make English the country’s second language.

But the plan was stymied midway by former education minister Chinnaworn Boonyakiat.

The committee reviewing the education system shot down the proposal for a peculiar reason: Making English a second official language might lead to misunderstanding that Thailand had been colonised in the past.

The minister justified his decision by saying that all countries in the region where English is the second language were viewed as former colonies.
While making comparisons between silly news makers in both countries, a Malaysian friend who is a long-time Bangkok resident summed it up with a common phrase:

“Same, same but different.”

Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes this Mark Twain quote: The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice.

Sovereignty of Malay Rulers a legal fiction

IN the midst of the controversy over Mat Sabu and Bukit Kepong certain views have been expressed about British rule which may have the unintended effect of confusing rather than enlightening.

It is true that the Malay states – unlike Penang, Malacca and Singapore – were not British colonies in the formal sense. Nonetheless, they were under British rule. The sovereignty of the Malay Rulers was a legal fiction.

The Ruler was required in both the Federated and Unfederated Malay States to seek, and act upon, the advice of the British Resident or Adviser “on all questions other than those touching Malay Religion and Custom”.

In other words, decision-making powers were effectively in the hands of the British.

Apart from laws and treaties which established the actual locus of authority with the British, every important dimension of the economy was under their control. Issues pertaining to land, resources, labour, capital and market in the Malay states were all determined by British policy and British interests.

This made the situation in the Malay states no different from the three British colonies in their vicinity. Indeed, it was British control over both the internal and external economy of the Malay states that rendered them de facto colonies.

Economic control led to the exploitation of Chinese and Indian workers in the tin mining and plantation sectors and the marginalisation of the Malay masses in the peasant sector.

The creation of a dual economy with the commodity based, exported oriented sector directed towards the colonial metropolis was a common characteristic of most colonial economies. In reality, the Malay states bore all the iniquities and injustices associated with colonial rule.

It is mainly because there was de facto colonialism that Umno in the 50s and Parti Kebangsaan Melayu in the 40s championed the cause of merdeka (independence) from the British.

They were focussed upon the substance – rather than the form – of British rule.

DR CHANDRA MUZAFFAR,Kuala Lumpur.

We need a truly national history

the Sun Says

WHAT was Malaysia when imperial Britain was lording it over us, a colony or a protectorate? This seems to be the title of the public debate that is raging in the media and elsewhere ever since someone declared that the country was not a colony of Britain before 1957 and 1963.

It may perhaps help the debaters to be reminded that before the Japanese occupation Malaya was made up of a colony known as Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore, the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negri Sembilan and the Unfederated Malay States of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Johor.

In 1946, Sabah (then British North Borneo) and Sarawak became colonies. Whatever their legal status – colony or protectorate, Britain was the de facto ruling power over them. In 1957, the states of Malaya became independent of that power, free finally to decide their own destiny. Sabah and Sarawak followed six years later.

Because it is not an academic debate some are clearly being emotional about it while others try, with whatever facts they have at their command, to claim that they are being objective. There is no doubt some valid points are being made but in the heat of the debate few seem to notice them.

It all arose as a result of a claim that someone is a hero because he was fighting his countrymen who were part of the colonial police force.

While it may not be easy to come out with a clear-cut answer and explanation acceptable to all as to whether the person is a hero or a terrorist, the debate has generated a lot of interest in the history of the country especially at a time when the contents of secondary school history textbooks are being scrutinised for errors and inaccuracies.

The special committee that is going through the history books and the complaints of one-sidedness regarding them is expected to come up with a report by the end of the year.

Local historians have been known to complain that the history books written by western writers or those influenced by them tended to play up the role of the British while ignoring or down playing the roles of local personalities.

To "correct" the situation local historians in their books tended to down play the roles of Britain and British officials in the history of the country. Some other local historians also tended to highlight the role of one community while down playing the roles and contributions of the other communities.

A common complaint of Sabahans and Sarawakians is that the history of the formation of Malaysia gives more prominence to the roles of West Malaysians in the effort while the natives seem to be mere passive assenters to the fait accompli.

Thus the report is eagerly awaited and if universally accepted it may be a guide or template for the writing of a history that is truly national.