History is an extremely biased subject in Malaysia. One thing that really gets me worked up is Sarawak history. As a Sarawakian, I honestly do feel that the Brooke dynasty was a good one – with the exception of Charles Vyner – these ppl were genuine Sarawakians in the end of the day. Yet, in order to ‘fit in’ with the rest of Malaysia, the Brooke family is portrayed as the bad guys – I mean they have to be if you consider Rentap the hero. In fact, IMO Rentap is in the same position as a modern day terrorist. How is he a hero? He was a pirate who killed and robbed many, and was trying to defend that lifestyle. Alot of the other Ibans converted to a more peaceful lifestyle with the abolishment of piracy and in fact a large proportion of the force used to subdue Rentap were Iban and Malay. It is analogous to modern day Islamic extremists trying to defend their extreme ideals.

Charles and James Brooke on the other hand strived to develop the country and developed a close knit relationship with the natives. They often stressed the importance of letting the ppl be invovled (they were reluctant to let foreigners come in to steal the wealth), and indeed Charles once spent a few years living with the natives, learning their language and was even made a leader – they would gladly fight under him! Most of the ppl also accepted the Rajahs. So don’t tell me that these ppl were not genuine Sarawakians! This is of course my view – and I respect differing opinions, however, I dont not like the fact that our history books do not even try to present an objective view of things. In fact, if you read the books, you ll find that they are unable to totally smear the Brooke family’s name – but they play up Rentap’s role as a Hero. This is of course illogical for if the Brookes arent bad, then how does Rentap’s image as the people’s hero fit in? This is not the same with west malaysian history or even Sabah’s historical heroes like Mat salleh who all fought against the oppression of the British! Sarawak wasnt being oppressed, it was being developed! Also note that Sarawak was an independent country at the time, (it was merely a British protectorate which is not the same as a colony. Sarawak only became colonized when the Japanese arrived) yet this differentiation was not emphasized in the books when talking about the rebellions.

My next contention with our history books is a more frustrating one. The last time I checked (before leaving for college), the form 4-5 syllabus for history had been altered to fit in more islamic civ history. I find that utterly rubbish (No, I am not Islamaphobic). The reason is because there is a disproportionate focus on Islamic civ and no real consideration for Indian or/and Chinese history.

Further, while I respect the greatness of the islamic civ of old, I think it rather prejudiced and stupid not to give a more detailed understanding of western history – esp that regarding the revolutions (what was studied was more like a dry description of events. I did not feel for these ppl. When I read Paine, I did.) The ideas of Locke, Mills, Rousseau and co should be studied in greater detail – not only because their ideas are still relevant but because understanding them may be the first step to understanding the ideals/tenets/fundamentals of modern democracy – of which we are. And taking into account the clash of civ in this cultural melting pot that is Malaysia, we are in a very good position to analyse all these ideas in relation to others. Political and philosophical awareness/awakening is, I feel, the first step to creating a more mature electorate and ultimately good governance. Most of the ppl in malaysia do not understand how democracy works. They only know how to vote.

The other problem is the fact that bits of the Islamic history, ie, where Nabi Muhammad received the wahyu, is presented as fact. Well that’s what I remembered. The point is, religious ‘facts’ should not be presented as fact in history books. Even though I am Christian, I will also find it utterly too much if they began representing Christ’s ressurection as fact in history books. Of course I believe it to be fact (LOL), but truly this is wrong in a multi religious country like ours.

The whole issue of Malays-being-here-first-thus-they-are-the-true-owners-of-the-land is ultimately flawed. But their special status does not derive from that claim (even if they use it to justify it) but derives from our acceptance of it in the so-called malaysian Social Contract. Even during that time, i think that it never crossed our fore father’s minds that that argument was correct and so supplied no consideration for that which followed: recognition of their status. Political rights were the real bargain we sought after.

It follows therefore that these rights are not inherent, and can be taken away. Our fore fathers gave up our rights in return for political rights which I must mention IS an inherent right (since by entering into democratic society we gave up our natural rights, but in return society must provide us with political rights to determine the exercise of our collective rights – therefore essentially, we gave up our rights to gain nothing that we would not have by being society members anyway). but one can clearly see that this argument is dependent upon the fact of citizenship – the other bargain we sought for – and one would be right.

However, as Paine says ‘no man has property in man; nor does any generation has property in generations to follow: and so the mistakes that our fore fathers had commited cannot be perpetuated forever by binding us all to that ‘Social Contract’. Our fore fathers gave up their rights to enter society, and it follows that it was only THEIR RIGHTS that should be permanently disabled and it is only THAT GENERATION of bumiputras that should receive the extra rights PERMANENTLY.

By the constitution, and by our laws, we are all citizens today by virtue of having malaysian parents and being born in malaysia. It is no longer conditional upon the fact of surrendering our rights. THAT is not written anywhere in our Constitution. Their rights are merely enshrined there, and can be taken down. I do not believe it to be convincing that the so called Social contract may still bind us because we tacitly agree to be in society – since our agreement to it is not free; where can we go? Away? Home is home and not so easily forgotten! Thus there is no longer any continuous consideration for that particular right.

Strangely, the i-was-here-first argument MAY be un-islamic. Of course I have not read the Quran, but since they too are ppl of the Book as I, then the first on earth was Adam. By their logic, therefore, Adam should indeed be the proprietor of earth (but note that Muslims consider all of this world to belong to Allah, a contradiction with their own views in itself). As Adam is the father of all Man, then logically we as Man are the heirs of the world. There is no ‘I am here first’ rubbish – we must all have equal claims to the world. Therefore if one argues that being first to arrive creates an inherent right (perpetuating forever thru your generations), it would be useless to use it to exclude another fellow Man albeit a different race.

The time will come for change, but now is not it. My arguments are only meant for discussionary purposes and I do not wish to incite any unnecessary malice. The People are not ready.

Anyways, if the US courts think that ‘heir of Adam’ argument is crazy then they man they should cast into a cell is John Locke LOL

However, I think that in applying this idea, we need to keep in mind that at least Locke used it as a starting point. He goes on to discuss his theory of labour-mixing which explains how society moved from communal ownership – ie equal claims – to individual exclusive ownership. This aspect is missing in the sons-of-soil argument with regards to proprietary interests to land and demonstrates another weakness in it. For, let’s ignore what I said earlier so that being first DOES exclude the rights of the rest of us Second-place losers – it is still incomplete as it fails to tell us of the relevant individual proprietary relationship as between the sons-of-soil. This is really problematic and faulty as a theory because by their own logic, everyone bumiputra shares the land equally. Thus they have TWO logical hurdles to overcome before they can justify their reasons LOL.

Mind you I merely wish to point out that any such philosophical ideas are so flawed that to maintain ‘rights’ upon it is totally misguided.

Also, even if Locke was right, this idea is still a starting point argument only, and as such cannot be used to argue in modern day Asylum (or any) cases ;)