1
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE GIVEN BY THE FERDERAL
PARLIAMENT HOUSE BY THE SINGAPORE PRIME MINISTER, MR. LEE
KUAN YEW, AND OTHER LEADERS ON THE MALAYSIA SOLIDARITY
CONVENTION ON THURSDAY, 3RD JUNE, 1965.
The Prime Minister
Gentlemen, I am sorry that we have to trouble you to attend this PRESS
CONFERENCE.
Set Back to Parlimentary Democracy
You will recall that in the course of the debate, I was invited by two
Ministers, Dato Dr. Ismail and Mr. Tan Siew Sin, to specify the instances of attempts at Malay domination. And the Speaker had agreed on Tuesday; he asked me to come to his room on Tuesday afternoon at six o'clock and asked me how long I was going to take under STANDING ORDER 34(4) in explanation and clarification which he knew was necessary. I said, "About 40 odd minutes"
So he said, "I will give you 45 minutes, starting from 8.15 (Tuesday)". As you know, he himself whilst in the Chair-- and when I was going to be given a chance to make this explanation. The Ministers went on till about 9 o'clock by which
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 2 time it was not possible for me to speak because the adjournment motion had been fixed and I was clearly made to understand that I was going to get 45 minutes. The question had not been put, the debate was still on the amendment, and you heard what happened this morning.
As part of the constitutional process, we have to obey the rulings of the speaker and so we waited with profound regret for I think that was a setback, not just for the Oppostion because the Opposition can get its views across anyway. I do not require the privilege or parliament to say the things I have to say, because
I am just going to quote what they say. There is no libel. There is no slander in anything that I am going to say now.
I am prepared to say what I was going to say, but I would like to express my profound regret that this thing should have happened and I think whatever our differences of views have been with Dr. Tan Chee Khoon, he feels very strongly about this and that is the reason why he has asked to be associated with this programme. Am I right?
Mr. Tan Chee Khoon:
I come to express, to make a clarification if I may, Mr. Lee.
Mr. Tan Siew Sin's letters
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 3
The Prime Minister:
All right. First of all, it may be useful if I produce the evidence I was going to produce in Parliament today. I was asked, where is this evidence of communalism and we were going to start fairly early. Dr. Lim Chong Eu knows them longer, for many years he was once an ALLIANCE WHIP and he left the
ALLIANCE only in 1960. And Dr. Lim Chong Eu wanted me to read out a letter from Mr. Tan Siew Sin to him in September 1956. But he is already here. So I will first ask him to read this because I would like to take it in chronological order and I will take it from there.
Dr. Lim Chong Eu:
I have the original here. So you can keep the copy.
In the course of my speech, I indicated that communalism within the
ALLIANCE and within Malaysia had reared its head long ago. And in the course of my speech also, I indicated that the ALLIANCE method of resolving this problem apparently had not produce any tangible results because after nearly
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 4 ten years, the same things are being said by the same people. And I made a quotation.
I read from my letters to indicate the question of feelings and the kind of sentiments that were actually in the background. We wanted to show clearly that the communalist concept of racialism did not emanate from us and certainly did not emanate from the MALAYSIA SOLIDARITY CONVENTION and that in actual fact it probably came from the other side.
And I will read this in full, because here is an instance of an opinion which
I myself opposed, and I take this opportunity again to repeat that the ALLIANCE
Ministers including the Deputy Prime Minister himself persistently twisted historical facts to try and label me and my Party as communal. The actual events and the record of the events which led to the crisis and my leaving the MCA are all contained in the press.
May I just quote now the relevant parts of the ...
The Prime Minister:
I think you should read the whole letter just to make sure.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 5
Dr. Lim Chong Eu:
In that case, there were two letters. The letter from Mr. Tan Siew Sin to me dated 8th September, 1956 reads:
"My Dear Chong Eu,
'I thank you for your letter dated 5th September, 1956 received today.
I am afraid I do not think that the points at issue are so minor that we can
give in the UMNO for the sake of sending in one memorandum.
(This is with regard to the REID CONSTITUTION).
Although we must think of the feelings of our own followers I agree that
we should also do what is right. If, for example, I myself were personally
convinced that the UMNO amendments are fair in themselves I would be
prepared to agree to them even if it meant risking their or our rank and file.
Unfortunately, I do not feel that the amendments proposed by UMNO are
fair in themselves. This means that we have to give in to them because
they happen to be stronger and I do not think this is a ship. In other
words, we have to yield because we are weaker, even though we are in the
right. We have to yield to expediency in issue which concerns not only us
but may well effect the future of our children and our grandchildren.
Anyway we can discuss this matter more fully when I see you next week." lky\1965\lky0603.doc 6
Yours sincerely,
Tan Siew Sin.
Dr. Lim Chong Eu quotes again from the second letter dated 27th September,
1956.
" Briefly my views can be summarised thus:- In the present stage of the
country's development we must face the fact that communalism exists in a
big way. Even the Malays, with their overwhelming voting strength want
their "Special rights" written into the CONSTITUTION. Some of them
are not satisfied with their present plums, some i.e. the majority of posts,
and the best of them too, in the public service. They want to extend this
highly discriminatory form of legislation into industy and commerce.
"WARTA NEGARA" talks about the necessity for making the Malays the
"Master Race" of Malaya. This presumbly means that non-Malays are to
be reduced to the status of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Shades
of Hitler ! Others want Malaya to join up with Indonesia. I myself have
heard this from the lips of one or two UMNO officials. It is unnecesary
for me to tell you what this idea, seriously pursued, will lead to! It is
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 7
difficult to assess the strength of these various forms of racial fanaticism
but, at the same time, one cannot blame the Chinese and other non-Malays
for being slightly nervous, to say the least! The non-Malays, therefore,
have to be communal merely to ensure their survival.
A Malayan nation does not exist at the moment and may never will,
the way things are going. Such being the case, to my mind, the MCA must
uphold Chinese interests, first, last and all the time.
In theory, the ALLIANCE is a political party representing the three
main racial groups in this country, as represented by their acknowledged
and respective political orgnisations, which between them make up more
than 95% of the population. In practice, as everyone know, we cannot
even agree on first principles and fundamental issues and hence have to
bring in the REID CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION to solve basic
problems which we are unable to solve ourselves!
In short there is no such thing as a Malayan nation either now or in
the making; worse still, there is ever-growing suspicion and resentment
between the various communities as the promised date of independence
draws near. The ALLIANCE may break up if put to a real test, and the
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 8
only thing left is for the MCA to unite the Chinese so completely and so
thoroughly that they will be able to face all the trials and difficulties which
inevitably lie ahead with equanimity and with confidence.
I am sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I must admit, if I want to be
honest to you and to myself, that I am pessimistic about the future of Sino-
Malay relationships. There is, however, one silver lining and that is the
reasonable and sensible attitude so far adopted by the top UMNO leaders.
The question which inevitably arises, however, is, "How long will they
last?" I must also confess that my pessimism worsened as a result of the
Carcosa incident. It was undoubtedly a small matter but it was a revealing
symptom of an intensely narrow-minded, racialistic and fantical attitude on
the part of the whole of UMNO , apart from a handful of the top leaders.
In such circumstances, I think one can be forgiven if one doubts their
ability to survive very much longer unless they are prepared to fall in with
the wishes of the jingoistic majority, and this forms the overwhelming
majority of their following. Outside UMNO, the oppostition might even
be worse. If my analysis of the situation is correct, you will perhaps agree
with me that the outlook is far from rosy."
Yours sincerely,
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 9
Tan Siew Sin
Promises broken by ALLIANCE PARTY
Now Gentlemen, I would like to take this occasion to rebut what
was said earlier on in the House by the Honourable the Deputy Minister. I
repeated many times that the reasons why I left the ALLIANCE were that
promises that were given to the MCA through me as the then President of
the MCA were broken by the ALLIANCE PARTY in power after then
were returned in the 1959 elections. Those were the reasons, and today
we heard a lot of talk about democracy. Only once, I think did the Deputy
Prime Minister use the word "Parliamentary democracy".
I want to remind people that in 1959, July 19/20th-- I am not very
certain -- the UMNO and the MCA held simultaneous assembly meetings
to resolve this crisis that had arisen in the UMNO General Assembly.
When the PRESS asked the Tunku what the situation was with regard to
the forthcoming elections and the nominations of the candidates, Tunku
said "This is a form of guided democracy and I am at present moment in
full control". It was largely because of my fundamental democracy differs
from parliamentary democracy, and my differences with the leadership
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 10
which has not taken over in the MCA, and also the breaking of the pledges
that made it impossible for me to retain my self-respect and my opinion
and principles if I remained within the MCA and the ALLIANCE, that was
the reason why I resigned.
I told the Government that one of the ways they could help to
dampen this present racial tension is for them, as responsible leaders of
their own Party and responsible leaders of the country, not to twist facts
and to pay on this concept of communalism. They charge us for being
communalistic when, in fact, all along my views have been the actual
reverse and opposite of the views that were held by the now President of
the MCA.
Jaafar Albar as reported only in JAWI PRESS
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew:
First, we want to note that in Parliament now the ALLIANCE
leaders are taking a slightly different stand. They say, "Agree Malaysian
Malaysia". We accept that. Now Albar says he is being misquoted;
Mahathir says he is being misquoted. They misquote me on partition.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 11
Senu misquotes me on Australia. So I would like first to deal with these
misquotes.
Albar said on the 27th May in Parliament.
"Lee, he said, has misinterpreted his speech."
Misinterpreted his speech, you know, when he said, "Wherever I
am, I am a Malay". Then he has gone on to say, "Oh no", what he meant
was he wanted all the Malays to unite and forget their provincialism. Let
me read to you to original of UTUSAN MELAYU in Malay. This is
UTUSAN MELAYU, 25th May. Albar said this:
"Setiausaha Agong itu telah juga menyeru orang Melayu supaya
bersatu-padu dengan lebih erat lagi menghadapi chabaran yang ada
sekarang. Oleh beliau di-tegaskan-nya bahawa orang-orang Melayu
harus-lah mengenal diri-nya `di-mana aku -- Melayu aku.'"
"The translation for that -- there is no doubt whatsoever what it
means, and there is no mistranslation by anybody:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 12
"We unite to face the present challenge" ( and he defined me and the
CONVENTION as a challenge and stressed that the Malays should realise
their identity) "Wherever I am, I am a Malay."
There is no mistranslation. Then UTUSAN MELAYU of the 24th
May, heading, front page "ALBAR CHABAR LEE KUAN YEW". He
challenges me.
"Kalau Lee benar-benar anak jantan dia tidak guna membuat
kenyataan yang berbelit tetapi harus berani berkata, `aku mahu keluar dari
Malaysia kerana aku tidak puas hati sekarang'."
He says, "If I am a male, if I do not want to be in Malaysia, want to
secede, say so". And he went on to say here:
"Tanya Dato Albar, dengan suara yang tinggi dan di-jawab oleh
orang ramai" `ganyang Lee, ganyang Lee'."
He has asked everybody, "What about it?" and the crowd
responded, "CRUSH LEE, CRUSH LEE".
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 13
Then says UTUSAN MELAYU:
"'Memang-lah', kata Albar kemudian-nya dengan suara yang menurun
(very softly now), "Lee ini sama saperti ikan sepat tidak boleh hidup di-
ayer keroh'.
Beberapa suara bertempek (the crowd again says) `tangkap Lee buat
pekasam' (Catch Lee and make pickles out of his intestines) Dato Albar
senyum sa-jurus kemudian menjawab (Albar smiled and then said):
`tempek kuat-kuat biar Dr. Ismail dapat mendengar kemarahan ra`ayat'
(shout louder so the people can hear; let Dr. Ismail hear the anger of the
masses)."
How they work their VHF
Now, gentlemen, to understand this we have got to distinguish
between what they say publicly to a multi-racial audience and what they
say on their own VHF, in the Jawi script. You know, non-Malays are not
expected to learn this because Rumi is the official script, so we don't learn
Jawi. So they use Jawi in UTUSAN, meant only for thier own VHF, their
private circuit. So it does not matter what they say in Parliament. This is
for a multi-racial audience, as you can see the King says, "Don't worry, lky\1965\lky0603.doc 14
this is all in Parliament". But the real message, I suggest, is contained in
UTUSAN MELAYU, "The Voice of the Malays" says the Tunku in
MELAYU MERDEKA, again in Jawi.
And I say, here is evidence of what they are planning and what this
will lead to. And we say, "Look, take a stand now. If there has to be
trouble, let us not kind ourselves. Do not postpone five to ten years".
I will give you an example how they work this. Dr. Ismail made a
very good point in this speech. It is quoted both in the STRAITS TIMES
and in MALAYAN TIMES, but in a very long report in UTUSAN
MELAYU not one word of this is reported. Dato Ismail said:
"With Indonesian confrontation, the Malays cannot afford to
dominate Malaysia without ruining this country."' -- STRAITS TIMES,
June 1, page 13.
The same statement made in MALAYAN TIMES, June 1st, page 8:
"With the example of Indonesia before us, the Malays do not wish
to dominate a ruined Malaysia"
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 15
STRAITS TIMES probably took it verbatim from their own
reporters' transcript, but this is from Dr. Ismail's script:
`"With the example Indonesia before us, the Malays do not wish to
dominate a ruined Malaysia which would certainly result if communal
differences are pressed to the extreme."'
I welcome that statement. It is sane, is rational, and sensible. But
now one word of that appeared in UTUSAN. And this is the key paper.
BERITA HARIAN is read by the city dwellers -- read by the non-Malays,
but in the Jawi script it is not there. And I have taken this thing back to
1956 to Mr. Tan Siew Sin's letters to Dr. Lim Chong Eu. So in fact there
has been no change in their whole thinking and attitude.
What the King is made to say
I will give you by way of example -- the people who write speeches
for the Agong. This is not said by the Agong. This is one from his official visit
to Sarawak -- November 24, 1964 -- written for him, an official script
written a long time before. Just like the King's speech last week. lky\1965\lky0603.doc 16
At a banquet at the Istana, the King said his visit was to gain a
deeper knowledge of the conditions prevailing here. Racial harmony, the
King said, was the basic for success and prosperity.
Then he goes on to say,
"We all know that the people of Sarawak and Malaya come from
the same racial family called `Polynesians' but historical circumstances
have separated the people of Sarawak and Sabah from the people of
Malaya. With God's will and with our own accord we have become one
nation -- Malaysia."
What about those not of Polynesian stocks? What about my friend
Mr. Ong Kee Hui, he, me, where do we come in? We do not belong on
this? This is from His Majesty -- scripted -- on an official visit. People of
Sarawak and Malaya come from the same racial family. So I am not the
people of Malaya and Sarawak. And he, Mr. Ong Kee Hui, is not the
people of Sarawak. Where are we going?
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 17
These are not only regrettable sentiments, but anthropologically it is
also untrue. And constitutionally it is also invalid.
I'll read to you what Tom Harrison, an anthropologist, said. He is
not a politician. He wrote a book review on Sarawak, published in the
STRAITS TIMES of 22nd February. And he said: --
"The remotest nomadic Punan in Central Borneo may be proud to be
a Malaysian and risk his life on the borders of `confrontation'.
But it could be disastrous to let him think that others thought he was
only a Malaysian.
Even though he cultivates not one plant, and domesticates only
hornbills and hunting dogs, he is definitely proud of being Punan too --
though he may say little about it to a stranger.
While he is prepared to die as a Malaysian, in the ultimate analysis
he may also be prepared to die rather than stop being a Punan."
Then says Mr. Tom Harrison:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 18
"Take away the different tattoo marks, valued beads and ways of
preparing betel nut and anyone would be hard put to it to tell the difference
between a modern young Iban, Land Dayak and Chinese."
Chinese are not Polynesians. This is an anthropoligist passing his
judgement on the position.
"Indeed, an anthropological identity parade can defy the most
skillful eye. Yet inside the mind, behind the friendly eyes, lots of little
things tick differently. And as these have been built up for more than five
generations, and sometimes five hundred, it will take more than pep talks
and legislation to alter this simple fact of Sarawak life."
I say this is very important. We all ought to start off from that.
That is Malaysia.
Population census figures
Gentlemen, I have here a table of the population census of
Malaysia. They are not from any communal, subversive document; they
are taken from the annual reports published by the Government of Sabah, lky\1965\lky0603.doc 19
Singapore, Sarawak and Malaya. They are just added up, put into round
figures and percentages.
I have also taken from the COBBOLD REPORT the population of
North Borneo and Sarawak. You can look up these things. Inche
Ghazalie and Dato Wong Pow Nee were in the COMMISSION and
subscribed their names to this.
Let me first of all read Sarawak. This is 15th June, 1960. That was
the last census they used.
All communities 750,000 (about)
Malay 129,000
Melanau 44,000
See Dayak 237,000
Land Dayak 57,000
Other indigenous 37,000
and other indigenous are:
Bisayah, Kedayan, Kayan, Kenyah, Kalabit, Murut, Punan.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 20
Chinese 227,000
European 1,000
Eurasian 500
Indian, Pakistani, Ceylonese 2,300
Indonesian 3,200
And now North Borneo:
All communities 454,000
Dusun 145,000
Murut 22,000
Bajau 59,000
Other indigenous 79,000 (they include Brunei, Kedayan,
Orang Sunge, Bisayah, Sulu, Tidong and Sino-Native)
Chinese 104,000
European 1,800
Others 41,000 (they include Native of Sarawak,
Malay, Cocos Islander, Indonesian, Indian, Pakistani, Ceylonese, Natives
of Philippines and others).
Who wants Partition
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 21
If you read the percentages you will understand why they want
Singapore to secede.
I have been accused of holding PRESS CONFERENCES. It is my duty to give people my views. I never withdraw one single word, one single statement. I say and I stand by them, as I stand by every tape recording that I made.
But I will say this. In December last year, Mr. Tan Siew Sin gave a
PRESS CONFERENCE off the cuff to a number of PRESS journalists, some of whom are in this room, and they know what I say is true. They were thinking in terms of booting Singapore out of Malaysia.
Shortly afterwards, about 27th December, Tun Razak held a meeting in which he suggested a re-arrangement in the Federation to make
Singapore more like a confederacy. These statements were made to a large audience and naturally must come back to us.
Are we the chaps to talk about partition? I have here a full
transcript of my speech at Delta Community Centre in Singapore; and as it is my
practice, it is on the tape and can be checked and played over by anybody who
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 22 cares. I will just read it to you. They didn't want me to give them a copy of this this morning to enable them to comment on facts, not on fiction.
I will read you the opening of that speech on Sunday:
"Friends, before I speak in Hokkien, may I just say what a
great pleasure it is to be with you for the fourth anniversary of the
Delta Community Centre. Briefly I would like to say how very
proud I am this evening to see what a tremendous transformation
this constituency is going through. They had a fire here in 1961 and
from the ashes of that fire we are building a new community."
There were old attap shacks there and we built six storey to fourteen storey skyscrapers there depending on the foundation it can take. But you know
Inche Senu just cut off that. It was all in there. This is the text. It is on the tape.
But the distortion, you see. One voice, says he, and always his voice.
What did I say:
"This is the forerunner of what is possible for the rest of
Singapore and indeed in the rest of Malaysia if we are prepared to
be forbearing with each other."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 23
I underlined the word "forbearing" gentlemen. I incite people to racial conflict when I say "please be forbearing to build a Malaysia, a Malaysia in which all Malaysians regardless of race, language, religion share equally in the opportunities of life?
I went on to say:
"Some people may wonder why it is that we instead of just
keeping quiet and allowing people to stay what they like, you know,
`Malays unite'. They shout this everywhere, and I've quoted to you
and I've quoted to you and I've got any number of instance to quote
ad nauseum. Everyday they are pumping this suit in Jawi. I say
people get worried. If among the Chinese you hear people say,
`Hokkiens unite', all the non-Hokkiens will say `What is it all about?
Is it to wallop the non-Hokkiens? So, when they say `Malays unite',
we say `what is this all about?' It is a fair question."
Now this is a long piece, about four pages. So I will read to you
what I said about these rearrangements.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 24
"You see, the agreement in the CONSTITUTION must lead
to a Malaysian nation -- a Malaysian Malaysia, and if they want to
stop it they must use unconstitutional methods to stop it. So I say if
they want to do that, do it now, better for us, easier for us to make
other alternative arrangements. And the alternative arrangements?
Well, we do not want to talk too much about it, but if it is really
necessary then I say, `Look, all those states want a Malaysian
Malaysia are sure to come together. And I can think of three
straightaway: Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore. I can think of a few
others like Penang and Malacca. I can even believe that the Sultan
of Johore will not want to go and join Indonesia as has been
suggested by UMNO's MELAYU MERDEKA. Why should he?".
I never used the word "partition", never suggested it and never will.
And I think in all fairness to the STRAITS TIMES when they quoted me, they
quoted me accurately. You see the heading says "Lee hints alternative
arrangements could be partition" but they never said I said partition. I said those
states that want a Malaysian Malaysia if there is going to be an alternative
arrangement they are bound to get together, isn't it?
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 25
I am talking logic, and in the whole of this quote it is in accordance with what I said. Never used the word "partition". I will not ever be the person who would be ever remotely be accused of having started partition.
But I think I value a lot of what Dr. Lim Chong Eu has been telling me of his experience and he is here. He can confirm this. You know everytime they want to get their way in the ALLIANCE they used to tell him blood will flow. It is true, isn't it?
Dr. Lim Chong Eu:Oh, yes.
Prime Minister:
Meaning our blood will flow. This is not tthe way, surely. Inche Senu said the same thing - blood will flow. I said to them, "For God's sake, let's not talk like this." All right, if it is really going to be that way, then as Khir Johari is realising and point out, many people's blood will flow, many groups.
And the only alternative arrangements I have ever envisaged are all within Malaysia and the Tunku knows that -- within Malaysia -- we need
Malaysia for each other's survival. And he knows that alternative
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 26 arrangements, adjustments can be made, accomodation can be made within
Malaysia.
And when I went to Australia, I want to quote from my speech in
Canberra, they were carefully chosen words, they have been published already, and I say to them think over these things.
"The real danger is Malaysia's own internal weakness,
Indonesian political subversion aimed at making a bid for the Malay
community within Malaysia. If Malaysia's leaders respond to this
not as so many Malays, Chinese, Indians and others, instead of
responding as Malaysians, then complications arise; for the more the
Malay leadership in Malaysia talks in terms of Malay nationalism,
the more the non-Malays in Malaysia will be in doubt as to their
future. What happens if disintegration sets in? Its too unpleasant to
comtemplate. Suffice it to say that theoretically there are three
possibilities: First, Malaysia's absorption or conquest by a third
power; second, the supremacy of one community over the others in
Malaysia; and, third, a drift towards segregation and ultimately the
partition of Malaysia. All three have gruesome implications. So
there is no going back either for Malaysia or her friends. Any regret
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 27
or vacillation at the cost of upholding Malaysia's integrity against
Indonesian aggression would bring catastrophic results for all of us."
What Dr. Mahathir said as reported only in Jawi Press -- Dr.
Mahathir said in the newspapers that I had mis-represented him. He is reported in the STRAITS TIMES, 2 June. He said that he made the remarks in the context that a Malay now found himself in a position to rule the country by virtue of being head of the ALLIANCE. You know this is his qualification. But this is what he actually said. MALAYAN TIMES from the script -- the principal government speaker -- when you move the King's address they pick a back bencher. They chose the man who led their conference to Winneba in Ghana to do this scripted piece. What does he say? Talking about Chinese like those in
Singapore and other parts: "They have never known Malay rule and cannot bear the idea." Dr. Mahathir now says this is not what he means. I read you Dr.
Mahathir on a cognate subject. I was going to put this to Dr. Mahathir in the
House. Perhaps he has got another explanation. This is Dr. Mahathir in KOTA
STAR, in his own constituency talking to them and reported only on UTUSAN in
Jawi.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 28
UTUSAN, 8 February 1965, page 7: "Do not try to
intimidate and use force on the Government. Malay youths urged to
be prepared. Malay youths to fix the unions."
What is this about? Then he said very clearly, there is no
doubt about the meaning. He said that
"leaders of trade unions should realise that the ALLIANCE
Government need not fear threats because the Government stood on
the support of the masses in the rural areaas who are not wage-
earners and who constitute the backbone of the support of the
Government. He regarded those launching the work-to-rule
campaign as `thorns in the flesh of the Government'. And the
Malays in the country he urged them to realise that the country is in
danger.
How does Dr. Mahathir explain this "Malay youths prepare?
You work to rule we take over?
If I may before I go on to deal with what the Tunku
himself said on partition: I never discussed partition,
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 29
never used the word. And this is the Tunku in UTUSAN
MELAYU in Jawi, 11 December 1964:
"Tunku's warning in Singapore is a very serious matter.
If the politicians in Singapore who are of various types and
colours disagree with me, there is no other way but to part.
But what catastrophe will fall on Singapore and Malaysia --
so said Prime Minister Tunku in Singapore day before
yesterday."
This is a UTUSAN editorial quoting the Tunku; and then you
get the whole tenor of this thing. "Conform Or Clear Out" -- that is
what it is all about. You can read the full editorial.
I do not want to belabour these AUSTRALIAN PRESS
misquotes, cuttings. They quoted the SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
and Inche Senu never gave me a chance to reply, but his own
staff in Malaysian Embassy in Canberra helped me to put out
a denial this year on 29th March. He must know this. And
there were no many inaccuracies. This gentlemen reported,
"Yes, my father is an Indonesian." Why should I say, "My lky\1965\lky0603.doc 30
father is an Indonesian?". Am I nuts, out of my mind? But
this is their technique -- one voice, his voice misquotes, twists
and distorts you and pillories you on his misquotations with
never a chance to put the thing right. I never said partition,
never dreamed of partition, but I said that there are three
possibilities. Yes, and I say that if they go on like this, you
must generate a course of events which will lead to one of
these three possibilities. My relationship with him does not
depend on my having to butter him up. But correspondents,
as you know, are entitled to say what they want to say. And
Mr. Peter Smart who was quoted by Senu said that I went
there to build up my own image, this and that. "Mr. Lee,
whose Socialist People's Action Party is the main opposition
party in Malaysia, is busily building a good image for himself
in Australia. He wants Australia to switch from support for
Tunku Adbul Rahman as a person and the head of the
Government to support for the country itself." That is his
conclusion. He is entitled to draw that conclusion from my
speeches and my statements. And I stand by every one of
them. What do you expect me to do when I go to Australia --
build a bad image for myself? Do they really suggest that I
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 31
do that? And look, against that, I can quote you Douglas
Wilkie in a syndicated piece appearing in about a dozen
Australian newspapers. Amongst other things, he said of me
-- this is 30th March, 1965 in the MELBOURNE SUN:
"He has not destroyed our sympathy, not tried
to, with the Tunku, an honest and liberal-minded Malay
patrician."
Why doesn't inche Senu have that piece? He was going to read some of
the piece and he decided to put it off. Why distort? Do they think I can
go there and make friends with Australia by running down the Tunku?
What for? It's not my job to do that. It is a waste of time. I go there to
consolidate Malaysia because by interests and my survival depend upon
that.
Inche Senu mentioned about breaches, of our misuse of TV and Radio and
that we have lots of them. I said, "List them; publish them. Indict us."
What does he expect us to do with that Radio and TV.? Go or to build a
bad image of ourselves? We gave the Central Government full cover, and
if by giving them full cover, it creates a not favourable impression of the
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 32
Central Government, what can we do? We report faithfully. If after the
Speaker had seen me personally in his Chamber on Tuesday and he said,
"Right, 45 minutes," with one intervening public holiday on Wednesday,
and on Thursday, I am told, "No, you cannot speak," can I help their
public image? Is it my duty to keep quiet and say, "Yes, that is quite
right"? Or do you not think that it is my business to uphold the rights of
citizens and parties within Malaysia -- democratic loyal Opposition Parties
-- playing according to the rules of the game to say their mind? And what
do I get? Threats. You know I marked all the threats in red so that I can
easily read them. This is just the last three months -- you can see from the
red ones just how many there are. I start off with one by Tun Razak. I
wanted to put this to him -- he must have had a first-class explanation.
There was a misquotation by UTUSAN. Things might have been all
solved. The Speaker said, "No".
In the UTUSAN of 1.2.65, page 1, front page:
"TUN WARNS THE PAP -- We will use force to
implement policies that will benefit the people."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 33
KUALA LUMPUR, 31st January:
"The Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak,
warned PAP leaders that there was no need for them to cast
insinuations at the ALLIANCE Government. `We will use
force to implement policies which we believe will benefit the
people,' he said.'
Inche Senu says the same thing. This is very
important, because these are important people. Inche Senu
again in UTUSAN in Jawi, 30th March:
"We cannot tolerate these circles."
"Enche Senu talked about the existence of certain
circles which pretended to support Malaysia ... but at the
same time they carry out propaganda to influence foreign
powers into thinking that they are the ones who are supposed
to be competent to rule Malaysia, and not the ALLIANCE
leaders."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 34
This was especially directed to the PAP. That is why I
wanted to know from the Tunku whether he supports this.
Enche Senu continued:
"We cannot tolerate these circles because national
interest surmounts all other interest.
"However if circumstances are pressing us, we will not
hesitate to use our power over them."
All right, what are the powers? Detention?
UTUSAN, 8.9.64:
"Singapore delegates regrets Central Government's
attitude of hesitancy. Urges (Central Government) to take
over (Government of Singapore)."
"Full Report -- Singapore UMNO delegate went up,
asked the Federal Government to suspend, take over."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 35
Then Albar in the UTUSAN MELAYU of 13.7.64.
"LEE KUAN YEW a danger to racial unity -- Albar "If
we (Malaya) are united nobody can humiliate us. A thousand
Lees cannot face Malay unity" he says. The Malays condemn
PAP Government.
Singapore July 12 -- the Secretary General of UMNO
Malaya, Dato Syed Jaafar Albar told the general convention
of Singapore Malays today that if the Malays were united Mr.
Lee Kuan Yew's strength would be nothing more than the
strength of a small ant.
Then, in a loud voice Dato Albar continued: "With the
Malays united, Lee Kuan Yew would be nothing more than a
small ant."
In the same speech, he went on:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 36
"To the crowd which is now in a state of rage (This is
UTUSAN, giving a graphic description of the proceedings)
Dato Albar explained that they need not fear Lee Kuan Yew's
actions because thousands of eyes in the Central Government
are observing his moves. What is necessary, said Albar, they
should be united and should not allow the spirit they have
been that day to be destroyed by Lee Kuan Yew on the 19th
of July."
That was the day certain Malay organisations [were] to talk about
this problem in a cold rational way "and the crowd shouted:
`We are united, we are ready to die'."
What does this mean? Who is going to be killed? Who is
going to kill them?
Now, I think this one of course takes the cake: MALAY
MAIL, June 2nd, 1965, Inche Ibrahim bin Adbul Rahman, Seberang
Tengah, said "newspaper is a very important instrument". A very
profound remark.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 37
"He said Mr. Lee was too ambitious and he was afraid
Mr. Lee would suffer the same fate as Julius Caesar though
he did not know who was going to be Brutus."
Gentlemen, this was in Parliament. You read this.
And on top of this the Tunku said (UTUSAN
MELAYU, 26.4.65):
"If the Malays are not given protection in this
matter "(that means special rights, you see, ARTICLE 153)
"the consequence is that they will follow the ranks of
extremists and sooner or later Malays will be forced to join
Indonesia."
We get this barrage, endless stream directed at us day by day. Directed at
us, only meant for this VHF circuit. So to the international audience Inche
Senu said: "Yes Malaysian Malaysia. Yes, we all agree. It is an old
concept." "ALLIANCE concept," said Mr. Tan Siew Sin. But Inche Senu
gave the game away when he said that is a new concept, and I think Inche
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 38
Senu called the new concept -- coined by the PAP -- "futurism". Tun
Razak's "insidious" concept, dangerous -- in accordance with the
CONSTITUTION it can be a dangerous Malaysian Malaysia? Where are
we going?
Signs of clear definite intention and systematic policy
Now, I would like, if I may, just briefly take you through all these
signs of a clear, definite intention and systematic policy. If they were
incidental statements, it would not matter. You may brush them aside as
of no consequence -- neither here nor there. But I want to show, and I can
show, throughout this whole series of statements and events a definite,
clear intention and system.
This is what Inche Senu said, UTUSAN MELAYU, 30th March,
1965.
"If UMNO is destroyed, Malaysia will be destroyed. -- Senu.
The Central Government will use its power."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 39
Everyday they are feeding this to their ground. And they tell me,
"Let us be careful because the ground not all are educated and
sophisticated." I would have thought, if they are not educated and
sophisticated, it is hardly the sort of stuff to feed them, isn't it? It is rather
strong meat. And he says:
"However, there is no party that can rule over us, but
on the contrary, we have the right (`We' -- UMNO, not
ALLIANCE) to rule over them," he pointed out.
And I now tell you what UTUSAN blatantly and openly said in its
editorial, by Inche Melan, UTUSAN MELAYU, 12th August, 1964:
"I feel that I would have given service to my race and
country ("my race" not "my nation" but "my race and
country") if within the specified time which I have given, the
ACTION LEAGUE could take up my challenge. I am
confident that the people will avenge whatever the LEAGUE
does to me."
This is about some ACTION LEAGUE sending him letters and so on
saying that he should not support the Government, or this, that, and the
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 40
other. "My race and my country": it is systematic. What is the end result
of all this? It is no use kidding ourselves. We are inflaming passions by
pointing out what they are saying? -- how can it be?
I asked them to quote one single instance where we have told the
Chinese, "Chinese, unite. Beware of the Malays". I have never done that.
This is dangerous nonsense. Quote one single instance. We are dangerous
because we tune in to their VHF everyday, tune in to make quite sure that
we at least see the storm signals before the storm bursts on us. It is going
on day by day. We have complete documentation.
They wanted to eat up their own MCA
It has got so that they were going to eat up their own MCA. The
thing became so anti-Chinese that in January this year they were attacking
Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang, attacking Gay Chong Kiat,
attacking Lim Swee Aun, as anti-Malays. They worked themselves into
that situation. There is a logic in communal policies. You have got to
watch this. You just can't say that these things are not important. It is
important. Having worked themselves up since last year, March 1964,
they started mounting it. They ended up in January by wanting to eat up
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 41
their own creatures. This is 21.1.65 -- all about national language, and
Wong Pow Nee says:
`Meanwhile, Inche Azmi Marican criticised the Chief
Minister of Penang, Dato Wong Pow Nee, who was
scheduled to have opened the meeting, for being absent.'
How could he be present when suddenly from constitutional date 1967
they are going to move it to 1965? So he absents himself and he gets the
beating. It starts off thay way. It ends up -- UTUSAN MELAYU of
6.1.65.
"Minister of Commerce Insults the Malay Language and the
Malay people"
Two weeks ago Lim Swee Aun, Minister of Commerce and
Industry, said in Parliament that even if the Malays were
given assistance in commerce and industry they would not
achieve progress because of their `tidak apa' attitude."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 42
First of all, this is an misquotation of Dr. Lim Swee Aun, but
deliberately done to work up feelings. The same techniques they
used on us. They even used it on their own chaps. And recently
when asked by the opposition why the national language was not
used by certain business concerns, he said there were certain
English words that could not be translated into the national
language.
"The writer is of the opinion that he is not a Minister
who is imbued with the Malaysian spirit. On the contrary he
is anti-national language and anti-Malay."
You feed that to your very unsophisticated ground, and what do you think
is going to happen? You are hating Chinese generally, is it not? What did
the President of the MCA do when all this was going on? He kept quiet,
you know. All he says is "Blood will flow". Blood will flow in any case if
you allow this to go on. And I spoke up for them. I spoke up as I felt it
was my duty. And not satisfied just with Ministers, they took on MCA
branches too -- 14.1.65. It is a constant stream. It is not an isolated thing.
They work up a systematic campaign.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 43
He said:
`Tuan Haji Sulaiman Palestin would
abide by the Tunku's decision to make Malay the official
language in 1967 (this is Gay Chong Kiat saying that) but the
change to the national language must be gradual."
It is a plea from an MCA man, a Member of PArliament. "Please make it
gradual -- 1967." He then criticised Tuan Haji Sulaiman Palestin for
having expressed his determination to make 1965 the year for switching
over to the national language. He accused Tuan Haji Sulaiman Palestin "of
having shouted slogans and of trying to be a national language hero".
16.1.65 -- Melan Abdullah, the same gentlemen who says
"my race and my country", Editor of UTUSAN MELAYU:
"Action Front accuses MCA Secretary of trying to oppose the
will of the King".
He never tried to oppose the `will of the King'. Look at that heading --
"the will of the King". Naturally people get excited. The presentation!
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 44
And the poor man said, "Please, for God's sake, the Tunku said 1967".
Heading -- "You are opposing the will of the King".
KUALA LUMPUR, 15th February:
"National Language Action Front yesterday criticised the
speech made by Mr. Gay Chong Kiat, Secretary of Penang
MCA and an M.P., and recorded it as opposed to the speech
made by His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the
conclusion of the National Language Month in 1964 at the
Cultural Centre not so long ago."
A long series that works a chap up., Carried on to 19.1.65; heading:
`HE (Haji Sulaiman) ACCUSED MR. GAY FOR TRYING
TO CRITICISE THE GOVERNMENT WHICH SUPPORTS
THE NATIONAL LANGUAGE."
Another long article just to keep the pot boiling. Finally it got so serious
that on the 21st of January MCA Muar came up with this in a press
statement (this is published in the Chinese press):
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 45
"Mr. Lee Ker Tong, head of the Muar MCA Youth. Political
Division said that though there is freedom of the press, it
should not be abused until it causes communal friction."
Their own creatures -- safe, mild, quiet chaps.
"Mr. Lee explained that this decision was taken at the MCA
Youth delegates conference which was attended by 28
brances recenlty.
The UTUSAN MELAYU was pointed out as the
newspaper which often publishes news which smacks of
communalism."
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew says this: MCA Muar says this. They were getting
alarmed; they were being done up. 21.1.65 UTUSAN MELAYU, Bajang
(one other pen name of the editorial staff):
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 46
"MCA youths have urged the Government to note the
contents of the UTUSAN mELAYU because they smack of
commulalism.
At the time Parliament was in session recently Bajang
heard that the MCA had sent its men to ask certain persons,
particularly Ali Haji Ahmad and Wan Kadir (who said all
under cover of privilege but would not repear it outside the
Chamber about me) not to mention anything about language
or any other `communal' matter."
From UTUSAN MELAYU 21.1.65:
"Bajang only wishes to wait for the outcome of this
incident. But Bajang would like to remind them again. Do
not try to cover the mouth with one's own index finger and do
not play with fire."
These chaps got so scared that they went and sent a
delegation to seee the Government, and they were accused of playing with
fire. Where are we going? This is a report from UTUSAN MELAYU,
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 47
21.1.65, editorial; "The Government is urged to keep an eye on UTUSAN
MELAYU which has always sowed the seeds of communalism." Says
UTUSAN blatantly in its editorial just cooking a snook at the whole
world. "The UTUSAN MELAYU was born with those main objectives
and policies. First, defend and religion. Second, defend and race. Third,
defend the home land." What is all this about?
"We regretted," (says UTUSAN MELAYU) "Dr. Lim
Swee Aun's speech in which he said that if the Malays
wanted to enter the business field they must be prepared to
face competition, not because he is a Chinese but because he
was speaking as a Minister."
They have worked up their crowd to becoming completely
anti-Chinese. Even their own Chinese Minister. We are not anti-Chinese
and anti-him because he is a Chinese. Damn funny, isn't it. And I tell you
what they want us to do. If today we reacted like this one -- UTUSAN
MELAYU -- grand finale, 28.1.65. "Asking the Government to keep an
eye on UTUSAN MELAYU and recognise Nanyang University degrees:
We only as -- explains MCA youth leaders: We will not take any action if
requests are turned down." This is what they asked. They climbed down,
you see, under this bludgeoning. "Muar 27.1.65 -
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 48
Leader of the Muar MCA Youth, Mr. Lee Ker Tong, today
explained that what they has asked for recently was only in
the form of requests. He said this when explaining the
decisions taken by the said MCA Youth recently, amongst
which were (1) a request to the Government to keep an eye
on the UTUSAN MELAYU because the said paper often
published news that smacked of commualism, (2) a request
that the Government should keep an eye on UMNO leaders
who often made speeches in Parliament in such a manner that
the non-Malays were dissatisfied, (3) a request that the
Government recognised the Nanyang University and (4) a
request that Chinese be made a compulsory subject in the
comprehensive schools. Mr. Lee said that these were in the
form of requests and they would not take any action if the
requests were rejected. We fear that these attacks may cause
the Malays to hate the MCA leaders and consequently the
Chinese."
He is quite right. First you hate a few leaders and finally you
worked up feelings against the whole lot. What has Mr. Tan Siew Sin got
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 49
to say about this? This is his own party. We stood up for him. We say,
"You cannot go on doing this, because we are involved."
I will tell you quite frankly, gentlemen. This is what I wanted
to say in Parliament. I know UTUSAN MELAYU well. I was its legal
adviser for many years. I used to see the Tunku with the former editor and
Managing Director, Tun Yusof bin Ishak, now Yang di-Pertuan Negara of
Singapore. I know who bought out all the shares in UTUSAN MELAYU.
I know who control them. UMNO leaders control UTUSAN MELAYU.
The Chairman of the Board of Directors is the Mentri Besar of Trengganu,
Dato Ibrahim Fikri. I know where the block of share have gone to. Tun
Yusof sold out his own few shares. Right up to 1959 he was the editor. I
was the legal adviser. Othman Wok was the editor. Since when was
UTUSAN formed to fight for race and religion? Can it go on doing this
with impunity? without sparking off conflagration? The Government has
got no control over them? Can't be, isn't it? If we go on like this, where
will we all end up?
You see this is where it is most important that we understand
what is going on. You see, the King's speech. It is very significant. In the
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 50
light of all this I consider this to be significant words. STRAITS TIMES -
- June 3, 1965:
DON'T BE WORRIED --
"The Yang di-Pertuan Agong today asked the people of
Malaysia not to be unduly worried or concerned about the
heated way in which his speech from the Throne was being
debated in Parliament.
The King was broadcasting to the nation on the
occasion of his official birthday.
It was obvious, he said, that Members had entered into
the discussion of his speech with enthusiasm.
Many hard words were spoken, but that is the way of
democracy. The CONSTITUTION ensures that everyone
can speak his mind."
I was asked to list out the instances. I have flagged them all.
I was given 45 minutes, Tuesday. Today told "no time", discussion in
Parliament.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 51
"The nation should not be unduly worried or concerned about
the thrust and parry of debate or the rivalries and differences
that arose." (STRAITS TIMES 3.6.65)
That is, "Do not worry what is being said in Parliament."
Of course everybody agrees to Malaysian Malaysia. But you
know the real message is here -- in Jawi. I want to see UTUSAN say,
"Yes, Malaysian Malaysia." I want to see UTUSAN publish Dr. Lim
Swee Aun when he says, "Yes, we are all co-owners of Malaysia." And
this is what he said. And I say "UTUSAN publish it." Tell your folks that
this is the position. We accept this and we will be happy. But you block it
out, isn't it. The message isn't going through.
Instead, people are told, "Just ignore it." We have to adopt
postures, "all the thrusts and parry of debate". This is of no value. The
real value is this message on the VHF.
Says Dr. Lim Swee Aun:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 52
"It was recognised that every citizen, no matter what
his racial origin was, equally every citizen, has an equal voice
and an equal share in the country. Every citizen is an owner.
He is not a guest."
I will be relieved to hear if he had the courage now to say
this. We have created, made it possible for him to say this. But what does
the Agong say? Tomorrow you say "Lee attacks the King." Everybody
knows his speeches were not drafted by the Agong. Agong saays "Ignore
Parliament." Don't worry, don't take any notice.
I say what does Tun Razak say on the 24th May
24th May: "Opening Commonwealth Society
Exhibition: As our country is one that men and women of all
creeds and colours, men and women of all races live in
harmony, in justice, in happiness and goodwilll with one
another. To those who do not agree with our way of life, I
say go somewhere else which is more to your liking and leave
us in peace to fashion our destiny. That is all we ask."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 53
That is exactly what I am asking. Where do I leave and go
to. There is a fundamental contradition between this, what Tun Razak said
and what Dr. Lim Swee Aun says. Where is Dr. Lim Swee Aun going to
go? Where am I going to go. I say once again we go back to the three
alternative.
Gentlemen, I am not saying anything on my own. I am just
quoting them. The irresistible conclusion of a systematic series of
conscious acts can point to no other conclusion. Their intention is to build
up this atmosphere of communalism and racism in which those who do not
conform are blackmailed with bloodshed, and those who speak up are
painted as enemies. How can it be.
Are the ALLIANCE really non-communal?
Dr. Ismail's speech. Does that represent the Government's
view really and sincerely as I believe he personally sincerely stood for
that. I don't mind the attacks, they are fair interplay of party policies. He
said something fundamental there.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 54
He has recited two steps. First step is inter-racial harmony;
second, an ultimate state of non-communalism. In other words, he says,
that non-communalism is a desirable and inevitable objective.
I say good, we accept that. Let it take 10, 15, 20 years.
Therefore, people like Othman Wok, Rahim Ishak are people who are
ahead for their time. These things may take some time according to Dr.
Ismail. But you know that they are being called? Traitors to the Malay
race, sellers out of the Malays, destroyers of the Malay race.
And what is very strange instead of allowing this process to
go on, where it has already taken place, you know it has taken place in
Singapore, it has taken place in Sabah, it has taken place in Sarawak,
multi-racial parties, they set out to reverse gears. They wanted to reverse
processes where multi-racialism was already an existing fact.
This is UTUSAN MELAYU, 2 August, in UTUSAN
ZAMAN, which is a SUNDAY edition, carrying a story by Deputy Chief
Minister of Sabah, Inche Harie bin Mohamed Salleh.
He said:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 55
"Communal extremists in the PAP which is
ruling party in Singapore, caused the riots."
He is in Sabah. This thing taken place, Tun Razak visits him,
and I don't know what was discussed and he comes up with this.
And he also said that:
"there was a lot of danger in a party whose members
come from various races. He said the Malays have been
living peacefully with the Chinese for a long time. But when
a multi-racial party becomes the ruling party communal
extremists and those who distort facts will cause
disturbances and chaos. Inche Haris said tht the evils
brought about by multi-racial party system should be wiped
out."
Dr. Ismail says inter-racial harmony, second step non-
communal state. I say I agree. Therefore these are people in advance of
their generation. What does Inche Haris say? "Dangerous". What does
Ali Ahmed say? He does down to Singapore -- 29 June 1964:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 56
"I shall continue in my efforts to protect the interests of the
Malays."
He goes down to Singapore to say that. How he is going to do it I don't
know. This is all democracy, you know, constitutionalism.
“What have the Malay leaders in the PAP done for us Malays."
What is all this? I thought we were all being Malaysians and so on.
"We must realise that only UMNO and nobody else protects the
Malays."
What is going on?
Inche Ali Ahmed, 20 July said the PAP is drawing a number
of Malays to their side to support it in achieving its ambitions. He said,
"Only Malays who are ready to sacrifice the interests of their
own race are willing to be supporters of the PAP."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 57
What is really interesting is when Albar is forced to admit
that the Malays in Singapore can't be won over. "They have been bought
over," says he.
UTUSAN, 28 March, Kuala Trengganu,
"Dato Syed Jaafar Albar said in his speech that the PAP is
now sending up propaganda agents to Malaya to do a little persuasion with
the Chinese and to buy over the Malaya so that they could become stooges
of the Chinese. Dato Albar however expressed confidence that the Malays
in Malaya could not be bought over by the PAP as they have managed to
do with the Malays in Singapore."
It is the failure of their policies, isn't it. They can't win them
over, they can't break these people and their followers. So you've been
bought over! Is this the way you facilitate the second stage or is this not
the real truth that you don't want the second stage. And I will quote you
very simply the real position. Sometimes they unwittingly let it out. Inche
Ghaffar Baba, Chief Minister of Malacca -- they are not ordinary people.
They are invested with authority -- Vice-President of UMNO -- he
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 58
declared -- this was 25th March -- "He declared that the three partners in
the ALLIANCE could never integrate into a single political entity."
If Dr. Ismail represents a sincere view, which I accept, and is
sincerely supported by UMNO, then we have a solution to our problem.
But what does Inche Ghaffar Baba say:
"There will be dissension and chaos in the party.
There would be a great deal of unhappiness in accepting one
standard of living habits."
How does joining in one political party create dissension of
living habits?
So, you go back again to the figures which I am going to ask
you to have. That's why they want Singapore out. Once Singapore is out
then this technique works. This communal technique cannnot work with
Singapore in Malaysia.
Why the UMNO wants the Malays to remain communal
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 59
In the old Malaya, Malays, you will see there, 50.1 per cent,
Chinese 36.9 per cent,, Pakistanis and Indians 11.1 per cent and other races 1.9 per cent. But in actual voting strength, the Malays have 65 percent of the votes.
So if you an get the Malays together and do not let them mix up, the whoever has the majority of 65 per cent wins the majority of the seats and controls the country. It is very simple.
We were befuddled for some time, wondering what this is all about.
But the formula is now clear. You see the verification and corroboration systematically. So a Malay must never mix up with anybody else, or you are a traitor. So you contain, control the 65 per cent. You cannot get all the 65 per cent. You will only get about 40 per cent because 15 or 20 percent will go to
PMIP, PARTY RAAYAT and a few progressive Malays in the towns; the urban areas will go PAP, UDP, PPP and so on. Then you can run this.
Dr. Lim Chong Eu:
Can I interrupt for just a moment? In the Federation, we were very concerned prior to Malaysia because not content with these figures, amendments were made to the CONSTITUTION to provide for a change of
CONSTITUTION by simple majority. And secondly under the old
CONSTITUTION, there was provision for the Election Commission to revise the
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 60
104 to 100 seats. The Election Commission reported, it went to the House, but at the Second Reading was withdrawn and there were further amendments to the delineation and demacration of boundaries. And that was why at that time we were unhappy about the allocation of only 15 seats to Singapore on the population ratio because the accepted ratio under the provisions of the
CONSTITUTION was something like 50,000 population per seat.
What do ALLIANCE partners in Sabah say
The Prime Minister:
With Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak, the formula cannot work although Singapore has only 15 seats, and in that way restricted in its participation over the whole area. But it has local autonomy and so we agreed to
15 seats.
Nevertheless, the 40 for Sabah and Sarawak cancelled out the restriction on Singapore, because Sabah and Sarawak with 1.2 has got 40 seats.
And as you see from the COBBOLD REPORT, the Dyaks, Dusuns, Ibans,
Melanaus, Kelabits, and so on -- I am quoting Tom Harrison -- "are prepared to be Malaysians provided you also leave them as Punans. But if you try to do
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 61 something more to them, then they are prepared to die rather than stop being
Punans." So you see this insidious tussle going on -- first Sabah.
My best withnesses are the two Chief Ministers -- Stephen
Kalong Ningkan, a Dyak and Donald Stephens, a former Chief Minister. They were both ousted; one was ousted, the other came near to being ousted. What for? What is all this about? No attempts at domination! Who is trying to fix what in accordance with the CONSTITUTION.
First of all, I will read to you Donald Stephens on multi- racialism. He also worked out the formula, that this is what it is all about. So says Donald Stephens in the SABAH TIMES, 5th May:
"During the interview at the airport, Dato Stephens
reiterated that UPKO will never change its
CONSTITUTION, and that it will always remain a multi-
racial party within the ALLIANCE.
`After all', he added, `There are other multi-racial
parties in Malaysia which are functioning successfully'."
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 62
One of the reasons was the first crisis last year. On the settlement of the
crisis, Haris was made Deputy Chief Minister and in future Chinese join
SNAP, Kadazans join UPKO, Malays join ASNO, no more multi-racial
leadership. But I think Mr. Donald Stephens has also worked this out. He
has also been through these figures because when people start working
along these figures, the figures assume some importance and so we begin
to study them. And I think what is also important is Peter Mojuntin, the
Secretary-General of Mr. Donald Stephen's Party -- SABAH TIMES, 5th
April, 1964:
‘Mr. Peter Mojuntin said that if any person honestly
believes in a truly Malaysian National, that person can have
nothing against UPKO's sincerre and practical proposition
unless he is only interested in his own welfare.
He warned that it is most dangerous for the people of
Sabah and Malaysia to play racial politics. Just imagine what
would happen when we have a Chinese Party, a Bajau Party,
a Bisaya Party, a Murut Party, a Dusun or Kadazan Party,
Brunei Party, or Kadazan Party, a Peranakan party etc.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 63
The result will be that everybody in Sabah will suffer
more or less. The natural alternative for us all in Sabah is a
truly multi-racial political party that looks after the interests in
the party.'
He is a man who has felt the heat, you know! Next, Peter
Mojuntin again -- same SABAH TIMES, different article -- one, he was
speaking at Ranau and the other he was speaking at Jesselton:
`Mr. Mojuntin said that Mr. Mocktar's outburst
(Mocktar was the gentlemen -- USNO Publicity Chief, Inche
Sulaiman Mocktar, that is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's
Party; you know, Tun Mustafa, that is the Malay Party)
against multi-racial parties would only tend to suggest that the
USNO was a racial party despite the fact that its
CONSTITUTION was multi-racial.
Mr. Mojuntin concluded with the words, "For peace
and progress in Sabah and for the prosperity of Malaysia as a
nation. I would ask humbly Inche Sulaiman and others in his
position to find and support ways and means toward the
realisation of a truly Malaysian national -- the day when a
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 64
citizen of Malaysia can proudly say, `I am a Malaysian' in
every sense of the word. That is precisely what I am aiming
for myself and my forebears and for every Malaysian."'
These are partners in the ALLIANCE. Dr. Lim Chong Eu
was in it. Peter Mojuntin is in it. Donald Stephens is in it. Stephen
Kalong Ningkan is also in it. And I say that there is this tremendous logic
-- in communal politics. You apply this, you go on doing this and it is
going to head for disaster and by our keeping quiet, it does not mean that it
is not going to disaster. We are saying, "Please do not do that; just
drawing people's attention to what is going on."
We are not thinking in terms of the next election, 1969 or
1974. We are thinking in terms of the next generation. Whether we
survive or whether we are going to break up -- and if we break up, we go
back to the three alternatives.
They are: absorption, conquest by third power -- not
necessarily Indonesia. It is a mistake to believe that.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 65
Second, domination of one race over the other. It is very
painful because having started the domination you then have the painful
business of continuing the domination, which is very painful and exacting
operation, over years, eternity.
Third, more race riots, gradual segregation leading to
partition.
These are cold quiet words not mean to inflame anybody, just
pointing out the danger of their policy.
But one thing I say for all of us, whatever our difference, we
are not fighting for leadership. Mr. Lim Chong Eu says Dr. Ismail, had
spoke for two hours because he has a lot in his heart to say. He knows
more of it, he has been inside.
I am not fighting for leadership with him nor he with me. We
are very concerned about the future of all this. Where is this going to end
because every time we say "Malaysian Malaysia", they say "insidious
concept, dangerous, blood will flow". We would all go back and take our
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 66
blankets and over our heads. But is that the solution? You believe that the
MCP can do nothing?
Tun Razak said just now I am given security briefing. Quite
right. Therefore, he says I am not an enemy. But he was not prepared to
deny Jaafar Albar and Ali Haji Ahmad who said that I am Enemy No.1,
and what the Mentri Besar of Selangor, Said Harun, Ibrahim Fikri -- Perak,
Haji Ahmad Said, they all said this; but he is not prepared. All he said
was "He is not the enemy. Not yet."
Never will be. We, as I said, have done our calculation very
carefully and we know that time is on the side of the Malaysians. An
Opposition that can and will achieve its objectives constitutionally need
never be disloyal. We have a vested interest in loyalty to the
CONSTITUTION. It is only when an Opposition is unable to achieve its
objectives constitutionally -- PMIP, Socialist Front, that they began to
conspire with the Indonesians and others to bring it down. We do not
want to. We do not want to bring Malaysia down. We helped to build it.
We want it to succeed, a Malaysian Malaysia.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 67
But we cannot agree to any other kind of Malaysia, not that
kind of "Bangsa". I wanted to ask Tun Razak now. "Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa".
That is a slogan, you know, for the National Language Month. "Bangsa"
means race; "Bahasa", language, and "Jiwa" is life. We accepted Malay
unreservedly, you know. You study it, you know I am studying it. I gave
them a little illustration to show them that we are sincerely making an
effort, more than their chaps are. Surely a better slogan would be "Bahasa
Jiwa Kebangsaan", much nicer -- "Language is the soul of a nation." But
now "Bangsa". There is a big difference, you know. I say "Bahasa Jiwa
Kebangsaan" then I can be a Malaysian. I've got a chance. I cannot be a
Malay, you know. It is not possible. 61% of the population. Read these
figures, gentlemen. They are taken from ANNUAL REPORTS -- cold
blooded truth. There is nothing communal in it. They are playing with it.
So we have a look and say, "My God, did we make a mistake?". And we
looked at it and say, "No, we did not make a mistake. It is all right." 39.4
-- and you say, Bahasa Jiwa Bangsa -- then nearly 61% is out. Where do
they belong?
Temenggong Jugah was very worried. You saw him. You
saw him haircut. What is wrong with it? And he's very proud of it, and he
came with his hair uncovered. What is wrong with it? He can't be a
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 68
Malay. And you remember what Mr. Tom Harrison said? He is an
anthropologist, lived with them for years. You try and make a Punan not
a Punan, then he is prepared to die.
I don't know; I don't want to speak for all Chinese. But if
anybody wants to turn me into something that I can't be turned into, I just
have to resist. What can I do? But I can be a Malaysian. I am prepared
to learn. But I tell you what happens with some of them. I hope this is not
the official attitude.
We learn Malay and Rumi, i.e. the official script. But then
they use Jawi, their shorthand. So you have to make this extra effort to
learn Jawi.
I tell you this -- this is incidental -- but it illustrates their thinking.
At the time of the riots some of my colleagues were in the MUSLIM
MISSIONARY SOCIETY in Geylang (Lorong 3) and Syed Ali Redha of
Singapore was telephoning Syed Ja'afar Albar in Kuala Lumpur. And I
asked what did he say? He said, "I could only understand one or two
words because they decided -- since we were all present -- to speak in
Arabic".
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 69
I want to be quite sure -- where are we going now? I am
prepared to learn Malay. I accept this. Then you have a secret shorthand.
Then you pass the word: "Don't worry about Parliament speeches. Just
watch out for UTUSAN, the voice of the people. Says the Tunku, "the
voice of the Malays". My God, the Prime Minister!
What would happen if I went to NANYANG SIANG PAU
opening and said, "Voice of the Chinese, watch out. Never mind what I
say in Parliament in English. You know, I got to tell them -- I accept
Malay rights, and agree to Malay language, and so on, but actually what I
believe is in NANYANG". They wouln't know what I'm saying. It is very
difficult. Evry morning you have got to get a translator."
Mr. S. Rajaratnam:
You've got to see that this is correctly reported!
The Prime Minister:
Please, I never said that! you know. Anybody, any Chinese,
who says that any newspaper is the voice of the Chinese, that man is a
damn dangerous lunatic and should be promptly put away.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 70
There is no room for retreat, because we either stand and
succeed on this Malaysian Malaysia, or we face three awful alternatives
that I have laid out. Gruesome though they may be, they are better than a
Punan having to be not a Punan. That is very sad.
If this goes on another three of four years, and then you make
a stand, it is too late. Because this poison has been poured in day by day.
I say NOW. It has been going on one year and a half. Stop it. Then I
know we are sincere. We are going to build this Malaysian nation. Dr.
Ismail said, Dr. Lim Swee Aun said, "Go on".
If this goes on, and I am going to read next month's
supplement, the next meeting of Parliament, and Dr. Ismail and Dr. Lim
Swee Aun says, "Gentlemen, please explain", I am sorry I could not have
said this in Parliament. There is nothing which I wanted to say here which
requires special protection for me -- privilege. There is nothing, libellous,
nothing slanderous, no sedition, no incitement of violence, but an appeal
for accomodation in a Malaysian Malaysia. If there is none, if the
alternative to a Malaysian Malaysia is nothing, then we are prepared for
nothing.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 71
I think I speak for all of us in that respect. Dr. Lim Chong Eu
has been through this -- "blood will flow" business. When he says,
"Polynesians, we are all brothers, same race, people of Sarawak." Where
does Mr. Ong Kee Hui come in? He is getting worried. He is not sure
whether he is the people of Sarawak. These are basic issues.
I hope I can give a transcript of this to all Members of
Parliament, and also a copy of the Speaker, so that when we next meet
we can pick up from there, and I do not have to repeat. The trouble with
using the Standing Orders and blocking us is that in the end we will use
other ways -- a debate on Finance, about Defence; suddenly we will be
talking about Solidarity Week. Because that kind of talk about Solidarity
Week -- they say, we are not democratic.
There is no Barisan motion tabled in the Singapore Assembly
which is never debated. The Opposition gets time. They table a motion,
they are given time. We face them. I will take a bet with you that the
motions set down on the Order Paper by the Opposition will never see the
light of day. I am told Dato Onn tabled a motion again and again, and he
died before the motion came. We are afraid of democracy? I am prepared
to meet Inche Senu in the University of Malaya. Or if he thinks that is too
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 72
dangerous a place because the University consists of hotheads and rioters,
we can meet in the cool rational atmosphere of TV Malaysia.
There is nothing wrong. He can say his point of view. I can
say my point of view. Malaysians judge: am I anti-Malay? Are we anti-
Malay? Let them judge. But sometimes they are so confused. That I do
not know what they are doing. They are so confused as to who is friend
and who is foe. They now pick up the Barisan chaps and give them a very
big cheer, when Barisan says, "Yes, PAP is anti-Chinese". I must give
credit where credit is due. This is advantageous to me with the Malays.
" UTUSAN MELAYU, 1st June 1965 -- Barisan Socialis
accuse this, that, and the other. "
"Then he (Chia Thye Poh) went on and he was given a
big applause by ALLIANCE Members. Every time he
attacked Lee Kuan Yew, another big applause. Chia Thye
Poh said -- he gave a reminder to the Chinese to be careful
that the tactics and the pro-Chinese action shown by the PAP
-- that history has proved that PAP was a suppressor of
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 73
Chinese rights and had obstructed Chinese studies in
Singapore."
Well, thank you. They have made a mistake, because I will
quote them. We are not here to protect Chinese, Indians and Malays.
And, according to their system, if you are Eurasian, Pakistani, Ceylonese
you would have had it because what party would you join? We are here to
protect Malaysians and we intend to do that. Thank you.
Mr. Ong Kee Hui:
The only observation I wish to make is this: This morning
when Tun Razak made a statement he put words in my mouth. He
referred to the leader of the SUPP having said something about our
opposition to Malay being the National Language. In fact, I made no
reference at all to Malay as the National Language. Any remarks made
about languages was done by Stephen Yong, my colleague. Perhaps he
would like to explain what in fact he did say.
Mr. Stephen Yong:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 74
Well, gentlemen, the only thing he misquoted me was, we as
a party have no objection to Malay as the National Language. We merely
said that having accepted Malay as the National Language then the other
languages used and spoken by the other sections of the people ought to be
used as one of the official languages together with Malay.
Mr. Ong Kee Hui:
The other observation which I wish to make is to confirm
what Mr. Lee has just now said about competition for leadership. Dr.
Toh is the Chairman of the Convention. There is no competition for
leadership. The other point I think of importance is the amendment put up
by Mr. Lee. The text says that we are in fact working towards a
democratic constitution in accordance with the democratic
CONSTITUTION towards a Malaysian Malaysia. And all the speakers
who have spoken professed to agree with that, and the only speaker who
has not made any reference to that was perhaps Dr. Ismail. If they are
really sincere in what they say I cannot see why they should object to the
amendment. In fact they should have voted for it.
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew:
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 75
I think all of us must express our regret that the Prime
Minister on such an important occasion at a very important phase in our
history, said nothing. I know he was present when Tun Razak made his
speech. But perhaps if he had only made some remarks either associating
himself or making his own position clear, I am quite clear he would be
received with great interest and attention by everybody. As it is now, the
matter rests.
(Question put by a Foreign Correspondent)
I am only in transit here, so I am a stranger to the finer points
of Malaysian politics. My question in this. How far behind this racial
tension which we have here, can you see whether and perhaps a deeper
opposition based on attitudes towards structure of society.
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew:
The objective of this exercise, in my opinion, is not designed
to help the Malays as against the others. In actual fact it does not help the
Malays generally. It helps a small group of Malays to share the spoils of
lky\1965\lky0603.doc 76
small group of Chinese and a small group of Indians. But if you want the
Malays to progress, not the feudalistic leaders to remain there, then there
must be this education and leavening up. If you want the Malays to
progress, then they must rise above this environment. They must put the
yeast in them. They must have ideas. They must live in the age of the
rockets and not down in homage as a peon.
Mr. Ong Kee Hui:
Just one word. In other words, maintaining the status quo.
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew:
I say that is not possible. Nothing against Islam you know.
Nasser is a good Muslim. So are all his colleagues. But he broke the grip of the
Conservation forces in the Muslim brotherhood before Egypt surged forward in the 20th century. And it is surging forward today because his interpretation of
Islam means the great social revolution of Egypt.
lky\1965\lky0603.doc