This issue of whether the race riots which occurred between May 13th -15th 1969 were planned and organized, whether it was a coup de’tat or something else etc etc will not cease to capture the imagine of Malaysians for another hundred years – just like the JFK assassination. In the latter case, it seems there is new evidence today that there were more than two shooters!

Why can’t we just accept the fact that when the Alliance Party lost that many seats to the Opposition in the 1969 general elections for the first time in history, a lot of people were not prepared to accept it. It was so tinder dry that it would take a carelessly thrown cigarette butt to ignite a fire.

That, I respectfully submit, was what happened in the post-election period in 1969 when street celebrations went out of control, when nerves were so raw on all sides that it took next to nothing for tempers to fray.

Wives of policemen were insulted in ways that made the recent insults by the two ill-behaved BN MPs looked like kindergarten stuff. Electoral workers were murdered simply for putting up posters. Provocations led to more provocations – until it became necessary by some to respond in a more organized manner en masse. This could have given the appearance that the riots were ‘organized’ from above.

But to say that it was a planned coup by Tun Razak, Tun Dr. Ismail, Harun Idris and Ghazali Shafie is a *s-t-r-e-t-c-h.

Orangutan,

Malaysians are no different from the rest of the global community. We love conspiracy theories.

What happened between May 13th- May 15th 1969, some almost forty years ago, will continue to be debated as was the assassination of JFK. Since in Malaysia there is no law requiring that official government documents be declassified after 30 years, it will never be known.

Diplomatic dispatchers by foreign missions in Malaysia to their Head Offices, and communications between journalists are necessarily fragmented. There is a need to fill the spaces, connect the dots to get at the complete picture. Official documents would help fill the void, connect the dots and help in the objective analysis of the events popularly referred to as the May 13th incident.

“It will be absolutely naive to believe that the May13 trouble is an instantaneous reaction due to provocation. It is definitely a planned action to avoid the taking over of Selangor government…”

Seen from your perspective from the ground, it appears there was evidence of planning and the killings were not spontaneous. I do not doubt your sincerity in believing so, seeing what you saw and hearing what you heard.

However, let us try to put chronology of the events right. That could help form an objective opinion of what had really happened.

Before the crowd gathered at the Selangor MB’s residence, were there killings earlier?

I believe two election workers were murdered for putting up posters in Penang – or was it Malacca?

I believe processions by the Opposition took routes unauthorized by the police in open defiance of the conditions of the police permit?

I believe wives of policemen were openly insulted by those Opposition party workers and supporters traveling past police barracks, with vulgar and obscene gestures, and some screaming “Melayu balek kampong!!”

Nerves were very raw. Is it not then plausible this led to a confrontation and assaults between groups of individuals?

What was the role played by criminal elements from both sides in the ‘organized’ killings?

What was the role played by leaders in UMNO Youth led by Harun Idris?

The decision to call in units of the Malay Regiment to restore public order in KL turned out to be a poor one as Malay soldiers could not remain partial seeing their own being murdered. They were quickly withdrawn and replaced by other units more multiracial. If this was a planned coup by Tun Razak, why were units of the Royal Malay withdrawn?

In the final analysis, I believed the killings were isolated and sporadic and not connected – but later these took the appearance of a more organized retaliation as elements, both political and criminal, exploited the situation.

To: Loh

If it was a planned coup, the Chief of the Armed Forces was the Tunku’s nephew who sat on the NOC chaired by Tun Razak.

“Yes, Chief-of-Staff is a powerful position, but colonels were more successful in those actions. Anyway I am not here to answer how a coup could be organised; it is clearly beyond me.” LOH

You need to understand a developing country like Malaysia or Malaya which was under western rule before it became independent. In our case we were under British rule up till the mid-50s. We then had a military trained by British officers, imbued in steep western values; our officers were trained at Sandhurst, Australia as was the tradition and elsewhere in NZ and Pakistan. These officers were trained in the western tradition of soldiers everywhere else in the Commonwealth not to take an active role in politics and to be loyal and subservient to civilian as opposed to military leadership. Our leaders were not soldiers in mufti nor was there a need for them to be. Our military played no role in securing independence. No blood was shed as independence was negotiated and by the civilian leadership.

This was not the case in neighboring Indonesia where the military was instrumental and played a major role in their country’s struggle for independence. Their leaders were military officers, and later soldiers in mufti and held the reins of government. Tradition there is different – and so is the role of the military.

Our military brass in the 70s, senior officers and second echelon officers were too well trained as professional soldiers to want to seek a political role or their officers harbor political ambitions. It was neutral – and still is. One can speculate, of course, that such political neutrality would be lost or abandoned once UMNO or a Malay political party loses political control to a non-Malay political party or a coalition of such parties. But that is another matter.

The army is the backbone of any armed forces and in the case of Malaysia in 1969, the Chief of the Armed Forces who has all three branches, including the RMAF and RMN under him was the Tunku’s nephew, the son of his younger brother, the late Tunku Mohamad Jewa. Since it is your submission that what happened in 1969 was a coup you cannot but imply that second echelon leaders in the military were aligned to a group led by the late Tun Razak. That, I respectfully submit, is highly implausible and will not stand up to scrutiny – and without the need to depend on personal and unofficial sources.

But there was a major realignment of forces within UMNO which made Tunku’s continued leadership of the party tenuous at best, if not completely untenable.

To know what happened in 1969, we would have to interview leaders who played a key role then. They have long since deceased and their secrets have long followed them to their graves. Memories of UMNO ultras like Mahathir and Musa Hitam who both rode on the waves of narrow Malay nationalism of the early 70s may still present us with a treasure trove of what went on in the minds of political leaders then – but not to expect their memories to be distorted by their perceptions, political loyalties and their life experiences would be rather naïve.

I do not think an objective study of the events is possible.

“I think it is circumstances that made Tunku relinquish his power to Razak under the National Operation Council. ” pwcheng

It certainly was.

After some thirteen years as “The happiest Prime Minister in the world” (in his own words) the Tunku was in fact losing touch with the grass roots. He was indulging more and more in his favorite pastime which was drinking and horse racing and poker with his MCA towkay buddies.

After all he was a ‘playboy prince’ studying at Cambridge and almost never making it at as a barrister had it not been for Eusofee who many years later committed suicide after years of distinguished service on the Bench. How many knew that the Tunku had an English wife?

In the years leading up to the 1969 general elections, the Tunku felt isolated. Tun Razak and Tun Dr. Ismail and the others were in fact making policy decisions and then informing him. The moderate senior leadership within UMNO was aligning themselves increasingly with Malay ultras led by the likes of Harun Idris and Mahathir.

The race riots only hastened the Tunku’s exit from the corridors of power. There was no need to engineer any coup as some readers suggest. Subsequent popular student unrest made sure he did.

To: PWCheng

If in fact an order was given to “shoot by sight any curfew breakers (if that was what it was) it was by the then IGP. But shot for putting up election posters?? Even the IGP wouldn’t do that. But there was a couple of Malay election workers who got murdered while putting up such posters.

Please check your facts.

“I now suspect either you do not understand simple english, or it just your habbit to put words into other’s mouth.” Loh

Neither.

I was responding to your statement:

“Yes, Chief-of-Staff is a powerful position, but colonels were more successful in those actions. Anyway I am not here to answer how a coup could be organised; it is clearly beyond me.”

which I admit by taking it out of context may be unfair to you. But that is no reason to throw personal insults at any reader however wrong they may be, however diametrically opposed the views may be.

For convenience I should paste the full text here:

“I wonder whether you read my earlier posting. I consider Razak’s announcement over TV as coup fait accompli. Obviously I did not sit in the National Operatiom Council to know how Tunku’s nephew could not prevent his uncle from being dethroned. Yes, Chief-of-Staff is a powerful position, but colonels were more successful in those actions. Anyway I am not here to answer how a coup could be organised; it is clearly beyond me.”

Where have I gone wrong in the interpretation? What do you mean by “…but colonels were more successful…”?

You put your views out there certain that the race riots were orchestrated and there was a coup by Tun Razak to oust the Tunku. My thesis all along has been there couldn’t have been a coup or anything like a coup because there was no need for one. My thesis is what started as sporadic outbursts of race based killings preceded by lapses in law enforcement led to planned retaliation.

I also said that my thesis is based on the same information you have and that I am not using material or access to material that you do not have. That is fair.

Be that as it may, my apologies to you if you think I’m putting words into your mouth. You said it was a coup and I said it was nothing like that at all. I said there was no need and hence there wasn’t.

A coup is a violent, sudden and illegal seizure of power from a government – and it is not even my definition. I understand that the word ‘coup’ could be used in ways that do not involve the military. However you spin it, it was not a coup by any definition.

A ‘coup’ from within UMNO? I did refer to a “general alignment of forces from within UMNO” which made Tunku’s hold over power untenable. When Tun Razak announced over the radio, like you say he did, that “as Chairman of the National Operations Council, he answers to the Agong” I believe it was meant to dispel any remaining doubts among the Malays and UMNO leaders that Tunku was still in charge. To gauge just how strong sentiment was against the Tunku you needed to be present at the numerous student demonstrations against the man.