'Historical data is there for all to see but the interpretation of this data will always be subject to who is interpreting it.'

British 'behaved' like colonialists, says Dr M

Proarte: What Dr Mahathir Mohamad is essentially saying is that the British were invited by the sultans to administer their states either because they were incapable of doing so or realised that the puffed-up authority and the riches which the British were willing to offer them, for 'selling out' was more attractive than being relatively impoverished and uneducated and having to wage continuous wars with rival chieftains or warlords for supremacy.

In actual fact, the 'invitation' was forced on them, a 'Hobson's choice' as it were. However, the British were willing to reward the collaborators handsomely. The price was to be pliant to British wishes and accept an 'advisor' or resident.

If the royalty showed any hint of recalcitrance they were shown the door and another 'sultan' found who would acquiesce to British instructions. This was the favoured model of colonisation by the British and is known as 'indirect rule'.

It is clear from what Mahathir has said - that he regards the sultans as the real traitors.

Meranti Kepong: Mahathir is a history revisionist and he refuses to acknowledge that Malaya then was known officially as British Malaya.

There were three British High Commissioners - Sir Henry Gurney (killed by the communists in Fraser's Hill), Sir Gerald Templer and between Merdeka and after, Sir Donald MacGillivray. These were the representatives of Queen Elizabeth.

Their appointments were common throughout the British Empire with the exception of British India which had a viceroy, and the last being Lord Mountbatten.

Hence, to deny that British Malaya was not a colony was to show extreme and deliberate ignorance of Malayan history.

Black Mamba: Umno makes us celebrate 54 years of independence gained from the British but Dr M says Malaya was ‘administered' by the British as a protectorate.

Going by the statement of Dr M now, he had lied and deceived us into celebrating 22 years of Merdeka during his administration as we were never colonised.

Anonymous: Elsewhere in Malaysiakini , it has been extensively argued on the difference between a protectorate and colony. It looks like, some still do not want to open up their minds and look at the issue from an objective point of view.

Let's be reminded that we should look at the substance rather than the form. The structure and the system under which the British governed the protectorate and the colony is irrelevant.

I also beg to differ in that the rulers "invited" the British to advise them. Rather, they were forced to invite them when the British intervened in the affairs of the Malay states.

Laws in the form of state enactments were passed by rulers on the "advice" of the residents. Laws in the form of ordinances were passed on the "advice" of the governor for the Federated Malay states.

Historical data is there for all to see but the interpretation of this data will always be subject to who is interpreting it. Facts should be stated as it stands and left for the individual to draw their own conclusions.

It should not be interpreted for a "so-called" national agenda or anything like it. That is called propaganda and not history.

Fillio: The British Empire, which hovered throughout the African continent, Middle East, Indian continent, Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong, legitimised its power through its infamous 'gun-boat' diplomacy.

For more than 300 years, the British Empire had survived by colonising not just territories but the minds of the natives. Colonisation was in many forms, and it started from trading of slavery and later expanded into taking over the political and socio-economic structures of the colonies.

The British Empire was subsequently disbanded when independence was granted to the colonies, nevertheless colonisation lives on till today serving the interest of the local powerful elites.

Tkc: This matter was mooted quite innocently by Mat Sabu when he asked his ceramah audience not to be too gullible with regard to our history as written by Umno.

To hear it morphed into the semantics of colony, protectorate or protected states is really absurd. Whether they colonise or protect the states, the objective of the British was to reap maximum economic benefits from the land that they occupy at the expense of the local populace.

At its peak, the Commonwealth countries contribute 70 percent of the GDP of Great Britain. Do you think the British would have colonised or ‘protected' Iceland or the Antarctica?

Astraltraveller: Ask India and Singapore if they were colonised by the British or a protectorate. Then ask Indonesia about the Dutch and the Philippines about the Spaniards and the Americans.

Whoever says otherwise is trying to rewrite history. This is only happening in Malaysia. The world will not change the real history of Malaysia.

Samuel Ng: If Malaya was not colonised by the British, some of our royal families would not be the present ones. History tells of sultans being disposed and another set in place.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .