your say 'For ethno-religious fascism to succeed, we need intellectuals to create myths and stories about leadership and ethnic greatness.'

Constitution expert: In reality, we were colonised

Proarte: After the disastrous British attempts to colonise Afghanistan in the 19th century where the 'infidel crusaders' were successfully repulsed and humiliated, the attempts to colonise took on more subtle forms. They adopted 'indirect rule' as the favoured model.

This was far more effective without the need to spend vast amounts on armies and bloody intervention.

Malaya with its potential to provide Britain with unimaginable riches was colonised through local proxies or 'tali barut', which the local 'sultans' essentially were. The British could employ them and depose them at will and thus the claims that they were 'sovereign' is utterly bogus.

When Resident JWW Birch was murdered, Sultan Abdullah Muhammad Shah II was removed and exiled to Seychelles. They immediately appointed another sultan to 'rule'. He was made 'defender of Islam' so that British would not be seen as controlling Islam and the Malays.

Similarly in Selangor, the Raja Muda, Tengku Musa Eddin, was denied the right to be sultan and exiled to the Cocos Keeling Islands.

Gerard Samuel Vijayan: While the Malay states were supposed to be only British protectorates as opposed to colonies like the old Straits Settlements, in reality there was no significant difference because the Malay rulers were merely figureheads and a great many were puppets of the British.

Whether it was a British governor, resident or adviser, they had to be obeyed and it was they who administered the state albeit in the name of the British Crown or the sultan. Except for matters regarding Islam; Malay customs and the royal courts, the sultans had no effective power or discretion.

The British even interfered with the royal succession in several Malay states, so the omnipotent power of the colonial master was considerable and feared.

Even after 1948, the British High Commissioner still wielded considerable executive powers compared to the Legislative Council. So when independence came in 1957, it denoted the end of colonialism as opposed to colonisation. It's just a question of semantics.

David Dass: The legal basis for British influence is important - the British observed the form, and each ruler remained ruler of the different states. Each ruler believed that he was ruler and that he had not been colonised.

The Sultan of Johor resisted the appointment of a British adviser in Johor for a long time and by agreement with the British government reinforced his independence. Indian and Chinese labour were brought into the country with the agreement of the rulers. They were not ‘forced' upon the rulers by the ‘colonisers'.

With time, the British strengthened their position in the states of Malaya. Each ruler had to follow the advice of the resident in all matters except for personal law and Islam. Here, the substance of the arrangement was British rule.

There were points of conflict and tension. Matters came to a head with the Malayan Union proposal which was abandoned because of Malay opposition. Thereafter, all races came together to negotiate independence.

Anonymously: Thank you, Prof Abdul Aziz Bari for setting the record straight and putting our history into perspective. You should been appointed to head the National Council of Professors and our history would have been correct, objective and crystal clear.

More importantly, our poor children would have been spared the merry-go-round of endless confusion.

Jin: The debate on whether or not Malaya was a British colony is meaningless. To say that we have never been colonised is like hiding one's head in the sand. It just shows how shameless the so-called learned professors are.

The Colonial Office report to the British Cabinet dated July 1, 1948 says it all. Item 2 of ‘Background to Recent Events' says: "Executive authority is, however, exercised in most matters not by the State Governments but by the Federation Government under the High Commissioner." Item 7: "On the reoccupation after the recent (Second World) war...".

So like it or not, Malaya was a colony in the British eyes.

MC: Don't just criticise Professor Zainal Kling. There were others who were there to support his claims.

From Bernama , these are the others: Prof Dr Raduan Che Rose, Prof Dr Ramlah Adam, Prof Dr Ibrahim Komoo, Prof Mohd Sahar Yahya, Prof Dr Zakaria Kasa and Prof Dr Abdul Latiff Abu Bakar.

Take note of all these professor ‘kangkung' who claimed that Malaysia was never colonised by the British.

Milosevic: For ethno-religious fascism to succeed, we need intellectuals to create myths and stories about leadership and ethnic greatness and how dangerous others want to weaken the group and discredit its leaders.

Pronto: With so much confusion sowed by politicians and academicians, should we be even celebrating Aug 31 as Merdeka Day, which is going to celebrated this year on Sept 16?

I think we should call off the celebration as we were never colonised by the British. Before Aug 31, practically the whole country were managed by the British, including the Armed Forces and police force - both the Defence Forces chief and the IGP (police chief) were Mat Salleh .

Black Mamba: It's good to have historians with contrary views. With our history in dispute, it's about time we rewrite the whole Malaysian history.

When the Japanese occupied Malaya, the sultanate were still intact, so are we to say that we were not colonised by the Japanese when their ‘banana' currencies were widely floating around the whole country, and that they were just administering on the sultans' behalf, too?

 

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 .