To the British
official mind, Malaya
was a project for
decolonisation that, if
“rightly guided”, the
progress toward self
government would be
achieved.
so that of Asia. But what of the road
ahead?” Describing the new nation-
state as a new beginning “as well as
an end”, what follows would affect the
much wider circle of “the free nations of
Asia. And of the circle outside Asia that
hopes they will remain free”.
These representations of Malaya and
Malaysia, were, however, made within
the framework of superiority and power
— the (colonial) dominance over other
peoples and cultures, and indeed, a
patronising attitude.
We cannot avoid noticing
misinterpretations and stereotyping, and,
perhaps, some doubts over the Malaya/
Malaysia project resonating Whitehall’s
position on the colony. One was on
Tunku Abdul Rahman’s approach: “…
but if the Tunku is genuinely liberal in
his approach, and shows resolutions in
fighting communism, he is likely to gain
on balance”.
neighbouring Indochina, where France
was fighting a losing battle.
In its long-term objective of securing
a reliable ally, the colonial mind was
weary of the Tunku. In “Citizens of
Tomorrow”, it reported that an unofficial
delegation of Chinese associations
had raised the issue of citizenship to
Lennox-Boyd. They had asked that
the qualification for citizenship be
widened to include “many Chinese now
disqualified, and recognition of Chinese
and Tamil as official languages”.
Although the Tunku assured Lennox-
Boyd 1 , the Colonial Secretary, and a
complex figure who served during the
decisive period of British decolonisation
(1954-59), there is no evidence,
according to the periodical that the
Tunku “allowed himself to be swayed”.
The relationship between the colonialist
and the colonised resonated in The
Economist’s discourse of comparing
Malaya’s problems to that of British
experiences in Africa. A July 6, 1957
article described Malaya’s communalism
as complicating “constitution-making as
much as Africa’s tribalism”.
1 Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd, National Secretary of the
British Colony (1954-1959)
The article, titled “Islamic State” (and
this phrase is from more than 59 years
ago) stated on the right to use “Chinese
or Indian languages for official purposes
for the first ten years of the life of the
new state disappears”. And that there
is to be no review on Malay land rights,
and appointments and nomination of
Malays for public posts and senators.
And in “Asian Milestones” (Aug, 31
1957), The Economist evokes a tinge
of nostalgia, phrasing it as “one of
history’s huge wheels completes today
a revolution that began centuries ago”.
The birth of the sovereign federation of
Malaya ends European rule on the Asian
mainland. And that age began when the
venturers, who had acquired trading
posts, “factories” and strongholds on
Asia’s coasts and offshore islands, were
A July 6, 1957 article
described Malaya’s
communalism
as complicating
“constitution-making
as much as Africa’s
tribalism”.
In “A Constitution for Malaya” (Feb
23, 1957), The Economist, arguing on
issues of nationality and provisions to
safeguard “Malayan jobs and rights in
the land” had likened the “last-minute
rush to Malayan independence” to “rival
the Gold Coast photo-finish”.
To the British official mind, Malaya was
a project for decolonisation that, if
“rightly guided”, the progress toward self
government would be achieved. “Local
autonomy” was urgently significant for
the colonial office in light of events in
PERDANA MAGAZINE 2017
9