Loyal Followers

Monday, September 12, 2011

Is it really, Professor?

I must admit of being astounded by the claim by Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling that Tanah Melayu had never been colonised by the British, save for the period when Malayan Union was introduced. For the record, this is his claim:

The good Professor rested his claim as such on the fact that the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 between Raja Abdullah and the British Governor in Singapore did not mention that Perak was to be colonised but was only to be “protected” as a “protectorate” of the British. The Professor went on to say that the only states which were colonised by the British in Tanah Melayu were Singapore, Penang and Melaka.

The good Professor may be correct in so  far as historical terminologies go. But history is not about terminologies and semantics. True history is about facts and reality. Of course, facts may be looked at from different views, angles and perspective resulting in different interpretations and conclusions. Realities may also be subjected to the same treatment giving rise to the term of “administered reality”.

With all due respect to the good Professor, the British entry into Tanah Melayu and their subsequent  entrenchment in  Tanah Melayu’s administration leading to at least a de facto colonisation of the whole of the Tanah Melayu peninsula and her surrounding islets cannot be viewed solely from and within the effect of the Pangkor Treaty alone. That would tantamount to an attempt to define the whole cosmos just by looking at the moon alone and nothing else.

Let’s however begin with the Pangkor Treaty 1874 (as the Professor had relied his thesis on it).

For the record, prior to the Pangkor Treaty, the British, through the British East India Company, were already deeply entrenched in Tanah Melayu. It “colonised” Penang in 1786. Penang was later confirmed to be a possession of the British in 1800 by the then Sultan of Kedah. In 1819, Stamford Raffles took it upon himself to bring Singapore into the British fold.

Later in 1824, the British and the Dutch, presumably under the mandate of some godlike creatures residing somewhere within the mountains of Scotland, decided among themselves to divide the Malay Archipelago into two, thereby giving away Melaka to the British and Indonesia (Sumatera) to the Dutch.

In each of these three little states which the British saw fit to do as it please, they had a Governor who governed for the British. In 1867, these so called “settlements” became the “Crown Colonies” and came directly under the purview of the Colonial Office in London.

Meanwhile, in Perak, upon the death of Sultan Ali in 1871, a palace power struggle was brewing. The Raja Muda of Perak was Raja Abdullah. He should have gone on to take the thrones. As events would have it, the Raja Bendahara, Raja Ismail was pronounced as Sultan.

Perak was a rich tin producer at that time. The British were itchy to get their greedy hands on Perak. They were waiting for an opportunity. That opportunity presented itself when Raja Abdullah wrote to the Governor of Singapore, Sir Andrew Clarke, spelling out his desire to place Perak under British protection, and "to have a man of sufficient abilities to show (him) a good system of government."

The British surely did not need further motivation but to lend their generous helping hands to a Malay ruler in need of course. With that, the Governor very kindly entered into the Pangkor Treaty with Raja Abdullah on 20th January 1874. With that agreement in hand, Raja Abdullah was made Sultan of Perak (although Raja Ismail was earlier appointed Sultan by the Malay palace).

Raja Ismail (the then Sultan) of course did not attend the signing of the Pangkor Treaty as he did not recognise the agreement for obvious reason. But faced with the might of the very big and terribly friendly and generous British, Raja Ismail could not do anything other than seeing the throne being taken by Raja Abdullah. Sir W W Birch was appointed, pursuant to the agreement, Perak’s 1st British Resident.

(It was with considerable irony that Raja Abdullah – later Sultan Abdullah – was later thrown out to the Seychelles for conspiring to murder Birch).

Professor Datuk Dr Zainal was correct to say that the Pangkor Treaty did not say Perak was a colony of the British. But surely that does not mean that Perak was not colonised by the British.

So what if the British had said Perak was only a “protectorate”? Does it mean anything at all? What if the British had said that Perak was a “paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die”? Does that mean Perak was a “paradise where everybody could smoke opium till they laugh and laugh and laugh and they die”? Just because the British had said so?

The British, for whatever reason, chiefly because they had wanted to classify their dominions throughout the world for economics and social purposes (and also for qualification for British citizenship) had categorised its “conquests” into three classes, the colonies, the protectorates and the protected states. Semantically of course there are differences between the three. But factually, it does not take a rocket scientist, or a learned bunch of thick-spectacled history professors to know that there were not much of a difference between them.

A colony is of course a state which the British had “annexed” or “settled” in. This state was presumed to be a jungle or a barren state where civilisation did not exist. And the very civilised British had of course “discovered” that state, just like Stamford Raffles did Singapore or Francis Light did Penang.

A “protectorate” is a state which the civilised and friendly (and generous) British had not annexed or settled in. This is a state where the British came in at the request of the helpless ruler of that state. It is a state where the British came to help or came to administer not  through force but through agreements or treatise. Yes. That is a protectorate.

A “protected” state on the other hand, is a state which is protected by the British, again at the request of the ruler of that state. However, according to the British, in a protected state, the British did not involve themselves with its governance.

Yes. That is the difference between the three classes of the British conquests. Who said so? Well, the British said so. So, if the British said so, it must be correct right? Well, the British also said that Maggie Thatcher had balls. Remember?

Relying on semantics – and these semantics were coined and used by none other than the British themselves – the good Professor said according to the Pangkor Treaty, Perak was not colonised.  

Well, is it really? Let’s look at the terms of the so  called treaty.

First of all, Raja Abdullah was proclaimed by the British as the Sultan of Perak in place of Raja Ismail, who was already proclaimed in accordance with the “adat dan istiadat Raja-raja Melayu Perak” as the Sultan. Now, may I ask, on what authority did the British make that appointment? On the fact that they are white men with guns and ammunitions far better than the collective keris and parangs owned by the Perakians? Now, if that is not annexation of Perak, tell me what it is.

Then, why don’t we (and the good Professor) loom at the salient terms of the so-called treaty.

  1. Raja Abdullah was acknowledged as the legitimate Sultan to replace Sultan Ismail who would be given a title and a pension of 1000 Mexican pesos a month.
  2. The Sultan would receive a British Resident whose advice had to be sought and adhered to in all matters except those pertaining to the religion and customs of the Malays.
  3. All collections and control of taxes as well as the administration of the state would be done in the name of the Sultan, but the Sultan was to govern according to the advice and consent of the Resident.
  4. The Minister of Larut would continue to be in control but would no longer be recognized as a liberated leader. Instead, a British officer, who would have vast authority in administering the district, would be appointed in Larut.
  5. The Sultan, and not the British government, would pay the salary of the Resident.
  6. Perak ceded Dinding and Pangkor Island to the United Kingdom.

Is this what a protectorate is all about? Does it not sound to all of us that Perak was as good as being annexed in a war with the British? Just consider the fact that the Sultan was to govern the state in accordance with the advice and consent of the British Resident. Perak was not colonised you say, Professor? Well, last night I saw pink cows flying over the crescent. Very nice.

Throughout the British presence in Tanah Melayu, we had three categories of states. The straits settlements, namely, Penang, Singapore and Melaka. Then we have Federated Malay States, ie, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang. These states were all not “colonised”, according too the British. They were just protectorate. Yea, right.

Then we have the Unfederated Malay States, which were Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu and Johor. They were also termed as protected states by the British. Again, that does not mean that they were not colonised by the British.

Under intense pressure by the British for example, Johor accepted a treaty of protection by the United Kingdom in 1885. With that Johor accepted a British “advisor.”

The way Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu came under the “protection” and became branded as Unfederated Malay States is an insult to every Malaysians. And for the British to insist that they had never – officially and technically, that is – been colonised by the British  is an act of colonial arrogance.

How did Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu become protected states of the British? Well, just as in 1824 when the British gods decided to divide this part of the world with the Dutch, in 1909, the British did the same with Thailand in the Anglo-Siamese Treaty 1909. In this treaty, these two gods divided the northern Malay states into two.

Under this treaty, Pattani , Narathiwat, Songkhla, Satun  and Yala remained under Thai control, while Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis  and Terengganu  which integrated into the British realm in Tanah Melayu as protectorates.

Now, who gave the authority and mandate to the British and Thais to willy nilly decide among themselves who to own what? The Pope? The British queen?

The mere act of unilaterally dividing these collection of Malay states which even predate Melaka among themselves is incontrovertible proof that these states were under the whims and fancies of these two people, ie, the Thais and the British.

All the terms coined and marketed about by the British were only what they are, namely, terms. Semantics. That is all. The effect is the same. They came into our country either through uninvited settlements or request by some people with vested interests. Under the pretext of lending their hands to assists us, they raped, plundered and stole our resources. They invited and brought people from foreign lands (I have to stress that I do not have anything against them) to work here. They then divided all of us and ruled us. Now, if that is not colonisation, I do not know what is.

The mere fact that they could come back to Malaya after the Japanese – who kicked them out earlier in about 5 days – surrendered and forced the Malay Rulers and everybody else to accept the Malayan Union (where they consolidated the Straits Settlements; the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States into one Federation – is proof enough that they regarded Tanah Melayu – regardless of their semantic classifications – as their possession, as theirs to do whatever they liked.

Isn’t that a trait of every colonial Master, Datuk Dr Professor?

If they had not controlled the whole Tanah Melayu other than the Straits Setllements, how did they manage to force every state to accept the Malayan Union. How did they manage to compel all our Malay Rulers to submit to their arrogance habit of dividing this territory as if we are some bunch of grapes which were to be graded and stomped on by their feet whenever they please?

What authority did the British have to “administer” us? To submit too their system? To their sense of justice? To their system of civil service? I am not saying that their systems are bad but under what authority did they manage to make us adopt their systems other than a systematic colonisation of our land?

Dear Professor, perhaps you should read the British Parliament hansard when they were debating the Malayan Independence Bill. In the first place, if they did not colonise us, why and under what authority did they have to pass an Act of Palriament in their Parliament to give us “independence”?

Sometime, people show their true colours when the speak. This is what the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, in a Freudian moment, said:

“Today, we are setting the seal on this work. We can, with Edmund Burke, rejoice that our ancestors have made the most extensive and the only honourable conquest not by destroying but by promoting the wealth, the number and the happiness of the human race.” (emphasis is mine).

Yes. That was, and still is, how they saw us.

Their honourable conquest.

And we were not colonised you say?


Kris said...

I saw those pink cows too around about the same time I heard the good Doctors claim that Malaysia was never colonised by the Brits......

SANSIRO said...

It's pathetic to see how idiotic our academician's twisting the history for political masters.

Anonymous said...

So he's saying each and every one who fought for Merdeka was doing it under a misconception. So who told them they were fighting for independence...saje, for fun ke?

Mohd. Kamal bin Abdullah said...

I totally agree with you that Malaya was a British colony.

Our academicians just make blind statements without carrying-out a thorough research on this matter. One must be really sure before making a statement.Just imagine a NON-PhD is able to justify his stand.

Good work mate.

Read my blog MALAYSIANS MUST KNOW THE TRUTH http://malaysiansmustknowthetruth.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Why did the British erect a pillar in London with the words "Malay States" if they did not really "owned" Malaya? You can't really bell a cat unless you really own the cat, right?

Anonymous said...

I don't think the Prof is that dumb. He is politically biased. There is no two ways about it. Its mutually exclusive: either you are DUMB or historically (read politically) biased.

Anonymous said...

Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling took one word from the Pangkor Treaty - i.e. "protected" and made a mountain out of it - and summed up his version of history.

If I was in authority, I would strip him of his datukship and professorship. Now you know why Malaysian Professors hardly write any books or journals - they know, they will look stupid!

Alex said...

And Tengku Abdul Rahman did not shout "Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka" on 31 August. He actually shouted "Bebas Pelindungan, Bebas Pelindungan, Bebas pelindungan".

Anonymous said...


Totally agree with your analysis. UMNO has "colonised" Malaysia just like what the Brits did in the 19th and mid 20th century. The learned professor is playing with semantics and he knows its always smart to be interpreting history according to how UMNO wants the Malaysian history to be re-written ala UMNO's way.

And by the way, I also saw the pink cows last night but I though they were floating lanterns released by little kids celebrating the moon cake festival, which if UMNO wants us to believe, is actually of UMNO origin as they hid messages inside their UMNO kuih bulan to get all their UMNO members to fight for Tanah Melayu independence from the half drunk Brits.

Anonymous said...

I can imagine someone like this good professor 'advising' the Malay rulers to accept British influence on the basis that it will not be colonisation but only protection all those years ago. To think we still have them today.

d'enricher said...


The Good Dr ?
The Good Learned Professor?

I think ... because of him everybody who is a Professor's (and I know a few really good one) image are tarnished.

What a shame ...

Really Majlis Professor Negara, should sack him, or those who are member should withdraw. Prof Aziz Bari of UIA admitted that he is not a member.

This is the problem with us in Malaysia, those who are suppose to be smart allows "IDIOTS" to dictates matters of such importance.

What a PITY!!!


Anonymous said...

Everybody knows that it is UMNO history and UMNO law. Only the umno malays don't know. How are we to talk about our history to the foreign tourists? All because of the confuse Umno historians.

borhan said...

Profesor Kling bukan profesor sejarah. dia profesor malim deman dan profesor pak pandir. sebab itulah ideanya macam idea pak pandir.

Anonymous said...

Whoa!!! Hold it, Art!

The "British Parliament hansard"? Is hansard one of the guards who dressed fancifully outside the English palace for tourists to take photos?

Your English is too complicated for Professor Kling to understand. After all, he's just a professor from an unknown university in Malaysia. Have pity lah. Use simple English with him, okay

Ellese said...

You've got it wrong. There is a fundamental difference in law and history. If were colonized we became British subjects enjoying rights of her majesty's subject. This was the reason that British had to issue citizenship to the Chinese as they were British subjects.

Protectorate is totally different. Though you can argue de facto it appears that the British rule the Malay states, there is de jure recognition of the Malay states royalties. Those in protectorate states are not British subjects. They were afforded protection but not British subjects.

So don't spin too much. Your views are not supported by any historians.

art harun said...

Dear Ellese,

It is okay with me if you do not agree with what I wrote. Just don't come here and throw accusations that I spin things okay please. Because really, writing is a passion. History is also a passion. I do not have any agenda, political, personal or otherwise which would motivate me to spin things. Whatever I write is based on my knowledge. I might be wrong. I might be right. So, you are always welcome here to argue and set out your arguments. Just spare me the shit okay.

You are right when you said that de jure (at law) the unfederated malay states and the federated malay states were mere protectorates. I said so too in my article. I never dispute that.

You also referred to the fact that protectorates/colony/protected states bring with them different rights in terms of, particularly, citizenship.

I do not dispute that too. In fact I expressly stated that:

Quote:"The British, for whatever reason, chiefly because they had wanted to classify their dominions throughout the world for economics and social purposes (and also for qualification for British citizenship) had categorised its “conquests” into three classes, the colonies, the protectorates and the protected states."End quote.

My point is they categorised as such purely because of external reasons, (such as you pointed out)for example because of qualification for citizenship. But as a matter of fact (de facto) they were all the same.

Even Dr Mahathir today seemed to echo what I say, ie, the British advisers/residents went on a rampage of their own in administering the states according to the whim and fancy. Dr Mahathir also said the Sultans were effectively left powerless because they had NO CHOICE but to act in accordance with the advisers'/residents' advice.

My views are not supported by any historians? That is okay because I don't write to seek support. But there is at least one historians who agree with me. Coincidentally he wrote an article on the very same topic today. His name is Dr Farish Noor.

Go and google it out.

Anonymous said...

so ...SO the poor late Tengku has LOST his title of 'Bapa Kemerdekaan'
...SIGHS ... how to RIP now !!

Chong said...

You have my support Art.

Dear Ellese, please get your words right of accusing Art of spinning things, who initiated this? the so-called "Prof" is, he is the so-called "Prof" who play with words, anyway I like the word "Semantically", *Grin*

Art's article is to correct him, don't go into technical jargon, academic terms for goodness sake.

Kuldip Singh said...

If Malaya was not colonisied...... Why did the Brits grant the rakyat Independence? The mere fact that the Malayan flag was hoisted and the Union Jack lowered and the chants of merdeka were echoed at Merdeka stadium is enough to suggest that we were liberated from The Brits. Do the Brits have an independence day? NO! they dont because they were not colonised by anyone. Do the French (apart from Bestile) or the Germans or the Swedes have independence day..... No they dont but they might have a national day. Dear Professor you might be right on account of what was written.... however the good lawyer is right on the essence of what actually occoured.

Anonymous said...

Professor, I want to ask this simple question: "Why are we in the Commonwealth if we are not colonised?

Anonymous said...

Propeser kangkung aka insipidus khoo dan gerombolan propeser
dalam majlis propeser no otak tak faham undang undang
yang direka dek british dulu.

Advice dari British Resident Untuk raja raja

semua undang undang negeri membekalkan hak untuk resident british memberi nasihat kepada sotan yang memerintah.

Yang istimewanya nasihat yang diberi tak bolih ditolak olih raja.

Di dalam hal ini prof Shad Faruqi -Consti tutional Law expert
bolih dirujuk untuk terangkan implikasi undang undang tentang advice [nasihat] yang diletakkan dek advisor omputih

Jadi nasihat yang diberi dek tuan omputih tu adalah law yang mesti
dipatuhi olih sotan.

Pahe ke si gerombolan propeser insipidus koo
dan geng geng nya di majlis propeser itu


bila sotan diperintah ikut nasihat sebagai satu law keatasnya- maknanya mereka hanyalah orang suruhan omputih aje-
kuasa mutlak ada kat tuan omputih

bagaikan kata orang perak sotan bergaye aje-

bior pape asalkan
bergaye jadi thema hidup mat mat sotan dan macai macai nya

bos sotan ialah tuan resident omputih -walau pun mereka digelar
advisor. Didalam konsep ketuanan mereka adalah tuan
pada sotan yang memerintah.

Jadi mat mat propeser semua kena jelaskanlah aspek undang undang
yang melibatkan sistem pemerintahan raja melayu di negeri yang
beraja melalui akta akta yang dibuat olih omputih pra merdeka


kepada majlis propeser , mesej sya janganlah jadi propeser buntut
yang akan digelakkan olih semua .

Yang negeri melayu adalah dibawah jajahan omputih adalah matter of law
bukan hal sejarah kangkung yang tuan nak tonjolkan

khong khek khuat

Anonymous said...

Hi Ellese
The malayans got it worst from the Brits as a protectorate than a colonialist. A British subject can as least go to Britain and gain British citizenship and enjoy their welfare benefits.

Malayans after being robbed off all their resources are treated as foreigners; paying full tuition fees, and what not. Ellese, you may be rich and you don't need assistance to pay your tuition fees. But not all Malayans are as fortunate as you.

The very fact that the Malayans cannot decide on their own fate means that the Malayans have a master robber dictating to them how they should be robbed, if not raped. Any body who cohort with the master robber must be a robber himself. That's why I support Mat Sabu antithesis on the Bukit Kepong case

Anonymous said...

the word protector was first used oliver cromwell .

After cromwell had beheaded the king [king stuart], he declared
himself Lord Protector- another name for the word king.

For all and intent cromwell was de facto king.

Hence the protectorate meant subjects.

So in effect [semantics or not] protectorate is a creative name for subjects.

So mata mat propeser in the gerombolan propeser and propeser insipidus khoo

can take note the sotan were the subjects of the protector or acurately lord protector-

King George and thereafter Elizabeth 11.

So madey the great pusing and the mat mat-who -spik-no-inglis or
the propeser-who-spik-some-inglis can now learn a term in english
protectorate means the subjects [aka rakyat marhen] of the lordy in

The first-in rank of the subjects were the raja -raja melayu
followed by his so called macais

khong khek khuat

Panda Kungfu said...

Its funny sometime. Apparently, to the majority of the commentators here, Art is right and the Professor is wrong. And what is the proof that Art is right? The proof apparently is in Art's contrarian view to the Professor. Actually, that there is no right or wrong answer. I prefer to call it a very grey area.

But do we have to disagree by calling someone an idiot? Is this the best that Sansiro can think of to cover up his mental inadequacy?

Anonymous said...

i am not surprised, those who deny will deny, maybe he will dispute whether Japanese occupied malaya, ..haha ,even Iranian President said Jewish holocaust never happened despite WWII documents

Navi said...

Winner takes all. Thats what the UMNO controlled government is up to.
History is as dictated by them.

megahyper said...

Gosh, now only did i realise. The good professor is epitome of analtomy!

In that sense, Manchuria was never conquered by Japan! They still install a manchu emperor as the head of state and declared it "Independent state"! Check out wikipedia!

Only that the good emperor need to act on their advice and not his own.

Also from Wiki: "Under Japanese control Manchuria was one of the most brutally run regions in the world"

You know the "germ warfare" experiment stuff? its done there i think.

Yeah, manchuria was never colonised. It was an "independent" state as proclaimed by the Japanese.

And most likely the germ experiment is just some "pro-biotics".

All bow to the great professor.

megahyper said...

In the same breath, it is effectively the sultan that invite the "people from foreign land" (as Art put it), and not the British!

Meaning: They were invited here and granted citizenship prior to 1957 on the behest of the sultan. (Note: Malaysia was never colonised according to our learned professor)!

Great stuff!

Anonymous said...

8.44 , kong-kek-kuat2 ?? hahahaha !

Anonymous said...

If we were not colonised, why we want to fight for INdependence.

During British rule, they controlled army and police, they started "new village' camps and imposed curfew, they even help rulers of Kedah, kelantan ,perlis to secede from Pattani sultanate (Siam)

Anonymous said...

Talking about powers of the Sultan back then in 1800,the malays then might recognize a particular person to be the Sultan of a State. But this is confined only to those who are close to the Sultan; the court officials. The malay masses don't give a damn who the Sultan is. And to the Brits, this malay Sultan is no more or no better than a village Chieftain who lived by exploiting the malay masses through fear and intimidation. Actually they don't have any powers. Their powers came from spears and kris and these were enforced through village thugs who worked for the Sultan.

That is one reason why the British back then could easily intervened in a State and took over control of its administration, finance and economy without any resistance or reprisals from the malay masses. To the malay masses then, Sultan or no sultan it was the same to them. With a Sultan, they were exploited to the hilt and lived in fear of the village thugs. Even now, most malays feel the same about a malay sultan.

So the sultan or village chieftain to the Brits, has no popular mass support. The Brits could easily impose their will and power on the state through colonisation or protection or intervention; whatever it is called. But once the British intervened, they are the real or defacto Sultan and not some malay coronated Sultan.

Anonymous said...

If the English didn't itch for the Tin and introduce mining technology and Chinese labour force M'sia would still be scratching the Kinta Valley soil with her calcified claws.Without the English there may not be a Malaysia and Malaya may still be sending Bunga Mas on Jumbo back to the Thai king.
Don't be a bodoh sombong.Why study LLB if you have so much disdain for the English?Why don't go to Pakistan or some other Tans to study some other laws?Utterly disgusted with your artless vies!

Anonymous said...

If the English didn't itch for the Tin and introduce mining technology and Chinese labour force M'sia would still be scratching the Kinta Valley soil with her calcified claws.Without the English there may not be a Malaysia and Malaya may still be sending Bunga Mas on Jumbo back to the Thai king.
Don't be a bodoh sombong.Why study LLB if you have so much disdain for the English?Why don't go to Pakistan or some other Tans to study some other laws?Utterly disgusted with your artless views!

art harun said...

Anon @ 14 September 2011 13:41,

Is it really? You could foresee it eh? So we are ever so grateful and thankful to the Brits lah eh?

They came here and introduced all those things not for our purpose. There is no such thing as free lunch from the Brits. They did all that not because they had wanted to emancipate us. They did those things in order to smoothen the rape and plunder of this country.

It's okay with me if you regard them as your modernisation god. Well, I don't.

And no, I don't have to be artful. It doesn't give me an orgasm.

And if you are disgusted, you know what to do. Click that "x" icon on your toolbar. Get it?

art harun said...

Oh by the way, just because I look at the colonisation of my own country and my people dimly does not mean I cannot study LLB or whatever courses the Brits offer. Why must I go to Pakistan?

Your comment reeks of racism. It shows.

Yusof said...

"Under the pretext of lending their hands to assists us, they raped, plundered and stole our resources. They invited and brought people from foreign lands (I have to stress that I do not have anything against them) to work here. They then divided all of us and ruled us."

I don't see how it is any different now....

megahyper said...

All hail Yusof the great!

Aku sokong!

"I don't see how it is any different now...."

Who rape and plunder..... now?
Who invite philipino and indonesian over.... now?
Who divide and rule us ....now?

This one liner beats the other 35 comments!

Brahim Pendek said...

Zainal Kling is another bum - like Rais Yatem, he's intellectually dishonest.[*]

So when are we gonna get shocked to screw these people out of the system?

This "outsourcing" or "farming out" of ruling a country, in cruel terms by today's notions(?), is no less barbaric. It makes you puke when these jerks wail out how civilized they are!

Malaysia has never really come out of the historically contested Malaccan grand empire. Then, they got screwed by China gangsters in the likes of the "Hangs" or "Hans" - they were ruled by Ah Longs who are still around today. And Oh Brother, there are Malay Ah Longs aplenty now! They learned their trade, since babi years ago.

We spent billions of ringgit and we have jerks like Zainal Kling, no better than Jailani Kengkang, who at least had a better sense of humor. And we're still at it!

Now it's worst. We have some Kelabit oil worker who ask McKinsey, 'maybe' even with some commission, to throw out some alphabets and say our crime rates have gone down while our mothers and daughters slaughtered their parents for dope!


Wakey, wakey, people! Screw these people out of the system.

[*] Rais Yatem's boo boo

RS said...

he calls himself a PROFESSOR? scary. I wonder how many crazies call themselves politicians in malaysia. oh, wait......


male said...

Different categories given by the British for colonised states show that British are smart in manipulations to confuse people and to gain control of states without any or minor protest from the people. They use the best available means and terms depending upon contemporary circumstances to realise their aim ie colonisation and at the same time minimising the protest from the people.
This is the art of colonisation used by the British which our prof purposely seemed failed to understand.

Anonymous said...

rejim najib suka guna 'rebranding' , slogan etp, untuk
kerja admin yang biasa dibuat di opis.

rebranding di dalam abad 21

kerja memberi jenama cantik untuk kerja jahat adalah
spesialti omputih.

kalau omputih culik rakyat afgan dan bawa ke thailand
untuk diseksa
-omputih sial jenamakan kerja jahat itu rendition....

bila dah gantung raja , oliver cromwell panggil dirinya lord protector-
sinonim untuk raja. Jadi pada masa rejim uk di bawah cromwell sendir
sebenarnya ialah satu protectorate dibawah naungan lord protector cromwell!!!!!!

jadi apa bezanya rakyat england pada masa itu dibawah raja atau lord protector?
zilch! ilek!

Ada beza jika rakyat perak di bawah skim protectorate atau di bawah rejim
oliver cromwell?

of course, ilek!!!

omputih, macam tony-the-penipu-besar-bleh lagi kuat tipu.
benda yang tak de dia bolih selamba kata ada bukti.

Imbas kembali insiden bila
ekspert nuklear british mati dikelar ditangan kerana meng'sexkan ' [1] dosier
untuk tujuan menipu ahli parlimen british -melaporkan sadam menyimpan
wmd-untuk menimba sokongan supaya gomen tony-penipu-blair diberi
kuasa menyokong us mengebom iraq.

Si tony -penipu-blair buat donno aje.

Nampaknya rejim najib pun licik macam omputih gak.

Bila bagi projek pada kroni, namakannya penswastaan/pfi dsbnya
Akibatnya ialah burok gak rompakan -piratisation

[1] translasi- sexkan= laporkan ada [wmd]

khong khek khuat

khoon said...

Zainal kling bodoh. Dia termakan cakap Cina Khoo Khay Kim. Khoo ini pernah di petik lama dulu di NST berkata hak bumiputera hanya di sabah dan sarawak.Kemerdekaan kita sebenarnya adalah kemerdekaan dari raja2 melayu. Raja2 Melayu mempunyai kuasa.

Punya jahat Cina. Ni. Bumiputera ini pun tak ada dalam perlembagaan. Yang ada hak Melayu.

KHoo Kay kim cakap begini, sebab nak kata Raja Melayu ada kuasa jadi Cina masuk Malaya atas jemputan Raja Melayu bukan British jadi mereka rakyat Malaya.

Jadi tiap2 tahun kita meraikan kemerdekaan dari raja2 Melayu lah.

Cina macam Khoo kay kim ni pun UMNO nak percaya lagi.

Cina tetap majukan agenda cina.

Supian said...

I wonder how someone like this gets a professorship title. It must be from one of those Ulu Universites. No wonder our universities never made it to the top 400, with professors like this lurking around. Stupider cannot be.