Tag: 1965

  • Separation 1965: The Tunku’s ‘Agonised Decision’

    Separation 1965: The Tunku’s ‘Agonised Decision’

    Did Singapore ask to leave Malaysia of its own accord or was it forced out against its will?

    Fifty years after Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, the question is still moot. This review of the events leading to the separation seeks to throw light on the conundrum.

    Singapore separated from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965, by a constitutional fiat that formalised an agreed settlement between the state of Singapore and the federal government.

    The act of separation was effected by the Malaysian Parliament adopting an Amendment to the Malaysian Constitution and ratifying an Agreement on Separation signed by the governments of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. It was put into action by a Proclamation of Independence of Singapore by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew that was read over Radio Singapore.

    That agreement was negotiated by leading members of the two governments to bring about an amicable solution to an increasingly bitter and intractable conflict between their ruling parties.

    However, it was then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who initiated the move to “hive off” Singapore from Malaysia.

    As he explained at a press conference after the passage of the Separation Act: “It was my idea that Singapore should leave the federation and be independent. The differences between the state government of Singapore and the central government of Malaysia had become so acrimonious that I decided that it was best that Singapore went its own way. Otherwise, there was no hope for peace.”

    This confirms that Singapore was forced to leave Malaysia at the Tunku’s behest. It was not Singapore that sought to secede or initiated the negotiation to separate from Malaysia, as some scholars seek to argue.

    Indeed, in the months leading to its constitutional eviction, Singapore had been warned by Malaysian leaders against seeking secession or a partition of Malaysia between the former states of Malaya and the new states – Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, as well as Penang.

    That partition had been proposed by Singapore as an alternative constitutional arrangement for a looser confederation. The proposal had developed from the call made by political parties grouped in the Malaysian Solidarity Convention for a “Malaysian Malaysia” that would ensure equality among all the states and ethnic groups in the country.

    This dual demand infuriated the ruling Alliance in Malaysia, especially the dominant Umno. Sections of the ruling parties called for strong retaliation against Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), which they accused of treason for seeking secession. Some “ultra nationalists” called for the arrest of Mr Lee and even imposing direct central rule on Singapore.

    As the conflict of words raged and Malay passions were roused, Malaysia’s senior leaders feared that violence might break out, leading to racial clashes across the whole country.

    Tunku’s surgical solution

    It was against this deteriorating political situation that the Tunku began to consider a surgical solution to this intractable problem, to cut the Gordian knot, as it were.

    The Tunku had left for London in mid-June for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference.

    I interviewed him on behalf of Radio Television Singapore (RTS) before his departure at the Paya Lebar International Airport, but he declined to say anything about the altercations between Malaysian politicians and Singapore leaders.

    In London, the Tunku was hospitalised with shingles and he thought long and hard about the problems with Singapore. His conclusion: “There would be no end to the bickering with Singapore except perhaps if Mr Lee Kuan Yew is made prime minister in the real sense of the word.”

    Indeed, the Tunku asked Minister Lim Kim San, who had gone to London with him, to tell Mr Lee (“your PM”) that “he can attend the next Prime Ministers’ Conference on his own”.

    That was the first indication by the Tunku that he would give Singapore independence, Mr Lim later said, although he missed the implication of the Tunku’s cryptic remark at the time.

    The Tunku wrote to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, telling him how he felt about the relations with Singapore and to talk things over with Mr Lee. Tun Razak met Mr Lee on June 29, but found it impossible to reach any meeting of minds. In Mr Lee’s recounting of the meeting in his memoirs The Singapore Story, Tun Razak went back on his previous agreement to consider a looser arrangement for Singapore and insisted on total capitulation in political activity, defence, foreign affairs, security and finance.

    However, as recounted by Dr Goh Keng Swee, when he met Tun Razak and Dr Ismail (Abdul Rahman), the Home Affairs Minister, in Kuala Lumpur on July 13, Dr Goh proposed that Singapore leave Malaysia to become an independent state. This proposal jived with the Tunku’s idea for Singapore to leave the federation.

    At a second meeting on July 20, Dr Goh told Tun Razak and Dr Ismail that Mr Lee was in favour of secession of Singapore and it should be done quickly, by Aug 9 when Parliament was to reconvene.

    On his return from London on Aug 5, the Tunku was asked by pressmen at the airport, including me, if he would be meeting Mr Lee to discuss the political differences raging between the two sides.

    His reply was non-committal, almost nonchalant, saying he would meet Mr Lee if there was anything to discuss. Little did we know that serious talks between Tun Razak, Dr Ismail and Dr Goh were going on in Kuala Lumpur, with Mr Lee in the Cameron Highlands consulted, on the total hiving off of Singapore from Malaysia.

    Tun Razak gave a full report to the Tunku on his return home. After Tun Razak and Dr Ismail had negotiated the terms of separation with Dr Goh and Mr E.W. Barker, the Tunku held an emergency meeting of his core Cabinet members on Aug 6, and approved the draft Bills to amend the Constitution and get Singapore to withdraw from the federation.

    On Aug 7, the Tunku said, the “big shots” of the PAP (meaning Mr Lee), called at his residency and signed the Separation Agreement, while other members of the Singapore Cabinet signed it in Singapore or at Singapore House in KL.

    Even at the last minute, Mr Lee asked the Tunku if he really wanted to break up Malaysia, which they had spent years to bring about. Would it not be wiser to go back to their original plan for a looser federation or confederation?

    But the Tunku demurred. “There is no other way out. I have made up my mind. You go your way and we go our own way,” Mr Lee recalled him saying.

    Secrecy had to be of the essence on both sides of the Causeway for fear of opponents of the separation reacting with violence to the agreement.

    Special Parliament session

    The first inkling we in RTS had that something was happening was the departure of several ministers from Singapore to KL on Aug 7. I was instructed to fly to KL on Aug 8 to cover the special session of Parliament on Aug 9, a Monday.

    I was joined in KL by fellow reporters Lim Kit Siang and Fuad Salim. In Parliament, we found only Mr Devan Nair, PAP MP for Bungsar, present. Some of the Singapore MPs were at Singapore House. Mr Nair and I listened to the Tunku’s speech moving the Separation of Singapore Bill on a certificate of urgency, via the in-house sound system in his office.

    When the session was adjourned, we learnt the Bill had been passed without opposition, although Umno Secretary-General Syed Jaafar Albar had left the chamber before the vote and expressed his disagreement with the separation. He, like the other ultras, wanted to maintain Malay rule over Singapore, forcibly if need be.

    When Separation was announced by the Tunku over Radio Television Malaya and the Proclamation of Singapore’s Independence read over Radio Singapore at 10am, Singaporeans received the news with a mixture of relief, regret and foreboding, although some quarters in Chinatown let off firecrackers in celebration.

    And when Mr Lee went on Radio Television Singapore to explain the circumstances leading to the separation, it was clear that he had been forced to accept Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia.

    It was, he said, a moment of anguish for him, having devoted his whole life to bringing about a united Malaysia, whose people were bound by ties of kinship, geography and history.

    He and Dr Goh had negotiated the terms of Separation to ensure that Singapore would be truly independent while continuing to have access to the water supply from Johor for its survival.

    And Singapore would be on its own for all its multiracial population, living in peaceful amity with the rest of Malaysia. Thus did Singapore achieve independence while avoiding a forcible integration in a Malaysia riven by interracial tension and hostility from a communal political system.

    That is the “coup” that Mr Lee and his PAP colleagues carried out for the people of Singapore, to achieve an independent and sovereign Singapore.

    However, it was the Tunku who played the decisive role in this saga.

    It was his agonised decision to let Singapore go that tipped the scales in favour of separation. Otherwise, the fracas between the state and central governments could well have become more intense and impossible to resolve, with no way out but an inevitable forceful denouement, that is, the arrest of Mr Lee and his senior lieutenants and the imposition of direct federal rule by the central government on Singapore.

    The Tunku was magnanimous in telling Mr Lee to leave Malaysia. If there is one person that Singapore should thank for its independence, it is Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, the first prime minister of Malaysia.


    •The writer, Mushahid Ali, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, was a reporter with Radio Television Singapore from 1963 to 1966 and later with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1970 to 2001.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • 1965 Dramatic Thriller, Not Lee Kuan Yew Biopic

    1965 Dramatic Thriller, Not Lee Kuan Yew Biopic

    Scenes of the race riots of the early 1960s juxtaposed against happier occasions among Singapore’s ethnic communities, and a clip of actor Lim Kay Tong as Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew calling for Singapore to be a multicultural nation.

    Film-makers Randy Ang and Daniel Yun shared a glimpse of the highly-anticipated film 1965, when they screened the film’s trailer at a press conference yesterday (June 17) at Shaw Lido.

    However, both Mr Ang and Mr Yun were quick to reiterate that the movie, which tracks events in Singapore in the early 1960s leading up to independence in 1965, is not just about the race riots.

    “It is not a biopic of Lee Kuan Yew, it’s not a propaganda film, it is not a documentary or a political film,” said Mr Yun, the executive producer and co-director for 1965. “It’s a dramatic thriller based on historical events, and touches on something fragile — racial harmony and some of the peace that we experience right now.”

    Mr Yun also said the movie was not just about looking back into the past. “Towards the end of the film, we sort of ask, ‘What’s next?’ That really is what this film is about. We showed what happened in 1965, then there’s a segment where we show the present day, but then we ask what’s the next 50 years going to be like.”

    More importantly, he added, it stresses the idea of home, a sentiment that actress Joanne Peh, who plays Chinese immigrant Zhou Jun in the film, echoed. “Until I did this movie, I never questioned the sense of home,” she said. “I was born in the ’80s and there was peace and harmony. For (my character), coming from China and settling in Singapore was a temporary situation … but we take (the idea of home) for granted.”

    Also introduced at the press conference were the official promotional posters and two songs written for the movie: Selamat Pagi by Sezairi, who also has a role in the film, and a new song by singer-songwriter Gentle Bones.

    Mr Yun is aiming high for the movie. “We hoping that this is a movie that can (have) box office (takings) of S$3 million to S$6 million. You never know — we could do better,” he said.

    Despite the movie being a period piece set in Singapore, Mr Ang said the film has legs to run well beyond SG50. “There are some universal truths in the film,” he said. “The film may be released for SG50 but even more than that, the racial and social discord (in the film) is something that is still happening. We had it here in the past, but elsewhere it’s still happening.”

    Mr Yun agreed that the film could have international appeal, adding that they are looking to market the film outside of the Republic, like in Malaysia, India and China.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Local Malay Supports Barisan Nasional Blames His Ancestors for M’sia-SG Separation

    DO YOU AGREE WITH THE AUTHOR WHO BLAMED HIS MALAY ANCESTORS FOR MALAYSIAN-SINGAPORE SEPARATION?

    395145_342944102470425_605289139_n

     

    https://www.facebook.com/wall.shafieeamir
    https://www.facebook.com/wall.shafieeamir

    SHOULD WE BLAME OUR ANCESTORS? OR SHOULD WE BLAME BOTH SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA FOR THE SEPARATION?

    On Aug 7, 1965, both parties signed the separation agreement. It was ratified at an emergency sitting of the Malaysian Parliament, which was hurriedly convened on Aug 9. In Singapore, at a televised press conference on the same day, Lee said the separation was for him “a moment of anguish”. He was so “emotionally affected” he broke down in tears, and the conference was terminated.

    procla_01
    http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/article/proclamation-of-singapore
    procla_02
    http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/article/proclamation-of-singapore
    http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/echoes_of_the_past/the_separation_of_singapore.html
    http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/echoes_of_the_past/the_separation_of_singapore.html

     

    Source: The Malaysian Bar, National Archives Singapore

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • When terrorists in one country are national heroes in another

    KRIUSMANHARUN359

    Tensions are running high between Indonesia and Singapore over the former’s decision to name a naval vessel after two convicted members of the Indonesian Marine Corps, who carried out the bombing of the MacDonald House office building in Singapore on March 10, 1965.

    The bone of contention lies in how Harun Said and Usman Ali, the two Indonesian commandos, are seen by both countries.

    In Singapore, they are the perpetrators of the bombing of a civilian target, while the Indonesian government sees them as national heroes who carried out their duty during Konfrontasi (1963-66) with Malaysia.

    The disparate labels for the two men are understandable considering Singapore, still part of Malaysia at the time, and Indonesia were locked in a dispute that stemmed from the latter’s objection towards the formation of the federal state of Malaysia, encompassing large swathes of territory on the island of Borneo that Indonesia had laid claim to.

    However, objectively speaking, were Usman and Harun terrorists or were they war heroes?

    Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism as the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. By this definition alone, what the two men did qualifies as an act of terrorism.

    Singaporean police records state that when they were arrested floating at sea, the two men said they were a fisherman and a farmer, before later confessing to the bombing.

    However, it was not until later, during their trial for murder, that the two revealed they were members of the Indonesian Marine Corps with express orders to cause trouble in Singapore as part of confrontation with Malaysia. Apparently, the two men chose to reveal their status in the hope of being treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

    21-02-Foto-Jejak-Langkah-2-Perdana-Menteri-Singapura-Lee-Kuan-Yew-menaburkan-bunga-pada-makam-Usman-dan-Harun-di-Jakarta-pada-tanggal-28-Mei-1973

    When the presiding judge denied them POW status – on the grounds that members of enemy armed forces who are combatants and who come here with the assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits and divest themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers, but are captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war – Usman and Harun retracted their statements that they were members of the Indonesian military.

    Despite lobbying by the Jakarta government for their release, Usman and Harun were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. However, when their bodies were brought back to Jakarta after their execution in 1968, the two were interred in the National Heroes Cemetery with full military honours.

    It could well be argued that the granting of national hero status to the two men was Indonesia’s way of saving face after a failed diplomatic attempt to have the two released.

    It was also a delicate time for Indonesia as the new government under then President Sukarno was trying to extricate itself from the confrontation.

    The hero status for both men was also anomalous even by Indonesian standards, as people given this recognition are usually those who perished in combat against enemy forces. Usman and Harun never actually met these criteria – as never during Konfrontasi did the Indonesian government nor its Malaysian counterpart officially declare war on each other.

    So, essentially, both were perpetrators of a state-sponsored act of terrorism. Hence, the adamant position by the Singaporean government that Usman and Harun were terrorists.

    By the same token, Indonesians should look at the incident as a lesson in how not to conduct bilateral relations. Sukarno’s accusation that Malaysia was a puppet state of the United Kingdom has never been proven.

    To date, it remains obscure why Sukarno instigated the unofficial war against Malaysia in 1963. Some historians have argued that his earlier success in wresting Papua from the Dutch emboldened him to try a similar tactic with the former British Malaya, though Sukarno always publicly denied any territorial ambitions. Nevertheless, Sukarno’s coveting Malaysia as part of a Greater Indonesia may not have been just a flight of fancy.

    In many ways, his model for the state of Indonesia was the ancient Majapahit Empire, which encompassed Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and parts of Thailand and Indochina.

    ST_20140208_STINDONSHIP1_4025141e

    Whatever his motives, the border skirmishes and acts of sabotage against Malaysia during Konfrontasi appeared to be designed to provoke the British, who had granted independence to Malaysia in 1957, into declaring war against Indonesia. Had they done so, Sukarno would certainly have obtained his evidence that Malaysia was simply an extension of British imperial powers.

    Johannes Nugroho*

    ###

    *Johannes Nugroho is a writer and businessman from Surabaya. This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

    Source: The Jakarta Globe

  • Krisis KRI Usman-Harun 359: Shanmugam membantah, Djoko tetap tegas

    shanmugamdjoko KRIUsmanHarun359

    Menteri Koordinator bidang Politik Hukum dan Keamanan (Menko Polhukam) Djoko Suyanto menegaskan, pemerintah Indonesia memiliki tatanan, aturan, prosedur dan kriteria penilaian sendiri untuk menentukan seseorang mendapat kehormatan sebagai pahlawan.

    “Dan itu tidak boleh ada intervensi dari negara lain,” kata Djoko di Jakarta, Kamis (6/2), menanggapi kabar keberatan dari pemerintah Singapura atas penamaan sebuah kapal perang Indonesia menggunakan nama dua marinir yang terlibat pengeboman rumah MacDonald di Orchard Road pada 1965, yaitu KRI Usman Harun.

    Sebagaimana diberitakan the Straits Times, Kamis (6/2), juru bicara Kementerian Luar Negeri Singapura kemarin mengatakan Menteri Luar Negeri Singapura K Shanmugam sudah berbicara dengan Menteri Luar Negeri Marty Natalegawa soal kasus itu. Dia menyatakan penamaan kapal perang buatan Inggris itu bisa melukai perasaan keluarga korban di Singapura.

    KRI Usman Harun adalah satu dari tiga kapal perang terbaru milik TNI AL, yang mengambil nama dari Usman Haji Mohamad Ali dan Harun Said, yaitu dua marinir Indonesia yang dinyatakan bersalah atas tuduhan pengeboman yang menewaskan tiga orang dan melukai 33 warga Singapura lainnya.

    Kedua marinir Indonesia itu dinyatakan bersalah dan digantung di Singapura pada 1968. Setelah aksi protes dari mahasiswa Indonesia, kedua jenazah marinir itu akhirnya dipulangkan ke Indonesia dan diberi gelar pahlawan dan dimakamkan di TMP Kalibata, Jakarta selatan.

    Tidak Boleh Surut

    Menko Polhukam Djoko Suyanto mengatakan, pemberian kehormatan sebagai pahlawan kepada putra-putri bangsa tentu mempertimbangkan nilai sesuai dengan bobot pengabdian dan pengorbanan mereka-mereka yang “deserve” untuk mendapatkan kehormatan dan gelar itu.

    “Bahwa ada persepsi yang berbeda  terhadap policy pemerintah RI oleh negara lain (dalam hal ini Singapura)  tidak boleh menjadikan kita surut dan gamang untuk tetap melanjutkan policy itu dan memberlakukannya,” jelas Djoko,

    Menko Polhukam mengingatkan, bahwa  PM Singapura Lee Kuan Yew pada 1973 sudah menabur bunga ke makam Usman dan Harun di TMP Kalibata. Jadi seharusnya sudah tidak ada permasalahan lagi terkait isu ini.

    “Tadi siang pukul 14.30 an, saya sudah jelaskan kepada Wakil PM Theo Chee Hean tentang posisi dan argumentasi tersebut,” tukas Djoko.

    Ia menegaskan,   Pemerintah Indonesia dalam hal ini  TNI AL punya otoritas dan pertimbangan yang matang untuk memberikan penghormatan kepada pahlawannya untuk d abadikan di sejumlah kapal perang RI, seperti halnya nama-nama pahlawan yang lain.

    Source: Sekretariat Kabinet Republik Indonesia