我国尚欠400万劳工?
美国国务院把马列入人口贩卖第二级的观察名单，并批评我国雇用过多外劳，然而，移民厅总监称，由于国民拒绝到特定领域就业，我国尚需300万到400万名劳工，特别是园丘业和建筑业。
纳吉政府是真正关心我国的低收入群体吗?
或者他只关心如何帮助富人获得更多的廉价劳动力？
再引进大量的外劳，谁获益最大？
非熟练与非技术外劳; 仅满足劳动密集工业!
大量供应外劳不仅拉低劳动群体的收入,
更剧增社会成本, 损失的可是老百姓!
http://wmee-yeo.blogspot.com/
VVVVVVVVVVVV
还要增加更多外劳。。。。。。。。。。。
马来西亚BOLEH。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。
很快的。。。。。外劳将成为第二大人口。。。。。。。。。。。国阵实在。。。。。。。太可怕了。。。。。
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
要使全球經濟運行正常，一個不知道如何對貿易盈餘進行明智投資的國家就不該有貿易盈餘；一個不知道如何處理利潤的企業就不該有高額利潤；一個不知道如何理財的人就不該存錢。除非能夠明智投資，否則賺錢的能力對世界就是一種傷害。
[謝國忠] 2011 08 29金融市場一片恐慌 世界經濟正二次探底
要使全球經濟運行正常，一個不知道如何對貿易盈餘進行明智投資的國家就不該有貿易盈餘；一個不知道如何處理利潤的企業就不該有高額利潤；一個不知道如何理財的人就不該存錢。除非能夠明智投資，否則賺錢的能力對世界就是一種傷害。
由於通脹、資產通縮或違約，資金囤積者在這個十年將會遭受困難。這是過去20年資金積累的必然終點。
龐氏騙局
德國人抱怨希臘人是騙子，竄改賬本來借錢。中國抱怨美國欠債成癮。但是，孤掌難鳴。若非有人響應，希臘人和美國人是無法維持這些壞習慣的。
人類為了以後的安全或是不時之需而攢錢。但從整體來看，錢還是要花的。如果每個人都想攢錢，那麼經濟就無法正常運行了。通過假設工作的人攢錢，退休的人花費積蓄，經濟學解決了這一問題。利率讓這兩者達到了很好的平衡。這種模式正常運行的條件是人是理性經濟人，管理其經濟的制度都是相同的。然而假設與現實大相徑庭。一些人攢錢的欲望要比其他人強烈得多。這種人通常會集中在一個民族或一個國家。這些錢必須從這些民族或國家流動到其他民族或國家。否則，全球經濟就無法正常運行。
然而，如果資金從前者到後者的流動效率低下，也就是說後者沒有建立賺錢的能力，那麼危機就不可避免。因為人總是本性難移，所以危機總是在所難免。
從2000年到2010年，德國積累了1.64萬億歐元的貿易盈餘，中國為1.35萬億美元，日本為5120億美元。79%的德國貿易盈餘直接來自其他歐盟國家。由於中國對德國有貿易赤字，而對其他大多數歐盟國家都有貿易盈餘，因此，所有德國貿易盈餘均直接或間接地來自其他歐盟國家。現在情況仍然如此。
德國累積的盈餘跟其他歐盟國家主權債務規模差不多。對於問題重重的歐盟各國，其來自國外的資金基本上都是德國的累積盈餘。
歐元的發行在歐元區創立了一個新的貨幣環境。資本市場假設成員國經濟體不會違背1997年《穩定與增長條約》。市場在條約簽訂之前便做出如此假設，並使意大利和西班牙這些國家的利率降低到德國的水平。由於存在其貨幣貶值的預期，這些國家的利率原先都很高。進入歐元區以後，這種風險似乎已經消失了，因此降低利率是合理的。
儘管《穩定和增長條約》限制了財政赤字額，這些國家的私有部門還是可以繼續以高利率借錢。高利率使得借錢給它們的人就像消費者看到了大減價一樣。當歐元區經濟低迷之際，幾乎所有人都會違背赤字限制。借貸熱潮所引發的高需求，導致從德國進口商品。德國則通過銀行體係將盈餘轉移到借錢的國家。
這是一場龐氏騙局。只要德國相信其他國家最終會還錢，騙局就可以維持。而一旦市場信任感消失，騙局就無法再繼續。如果沒有歐元，這些國家不可能會借到這麼多錢，德國也就不可能有這麼大的貿易盈餘。
德國最好的出路就是由歐洲央行發行貨幣將損失貨幣化。這樣至少會將損失蔓延給歐元區的所有人。如果德國拒絕這麼做，那麼欠款所造成的大部分損失都將由德國承擔。德國在解決危機的過程中會挽救歐元，他們也希望歐元能像德國馬克一樣堅挺，債務人最終也會還錢，但是最終，德國可能還是會選擇犧牲歐元。
到目前為止，德國一直是最大的貿易盈餘國。中國、日本和石油輸出國的貿易盈餘也相當可觀。德國的貿易盈餘主要通過循環回到其他歐盟成員國，而中國、日本和石油輸出國的貿易盈餘卻進入美國的國債市場，因為其貨幣與美元掛鉤，而不是歐元。這些國家貿易盈餘主要來自美國，所以其貿易盈餘要投回美國，以支持本國的匯率政策。
歐元區的債務危機對美國國債市場來說是有利的。市場不會像以前那樣向歐元區國家提供貸款。這些資金轉移到了國債市場。儘管美國的財政赤字比所有遭受債務危機的歐元區國家要高，國債收益率卻有所下降。因此，上述這些國家似乎比德國擁有更多財富。但是，這些國家和美國的動態關係，恰如德國和其他飽受債務危機所累的歐元區經濟體的關係。建立在貿易失衡基礎上的經濟模式，宛如龐氏騙局。德國現在的命運可能是中國未來的寫照。
盈餘困境
如果一個國家無法在國外明智投資，那麼它首先就不應該賺取貿易盈餘，否則就會傷及自己和其他國家。首先，很可能在國內產生泡沫，因為貿易盈餘對貨幣供應會造成影響。其次，這會讓人們獲得傻錢，造成其他國家的泡沫。到目前為止，沒有一個貿易順差較大的國家做出過明智的投資。
如果世界上只有兩個國家，那麼儲蓄率高的國家最後會擁有另一個國家。但事實上，一個主權國家不可能由另一個主權國所擁有。主權國家總是可以通過將外企國有化和拖欠外債來解決問題。因此，任何一個國家，如果永遠賺取較大貿易盈餘，那麼它並不聰明。所有為獲取貿易盈餘付出的努力最後都會化為烏有。
對外投資要取得很好的收益，前提是其所投資的國家經濟增長，並且不介意與外國投資者分享經濟增長的成果。但是這兩種條件很少同時滿足。這也是長期貿易失衡會造成經濟危機的原因。
如果中國要維持對美國的貿易順差，中國的投資必須要推動美國經濟增長。但是投資於國債不會達到這一目的，因為政府支出效率沒有那麼高。中國應該進入美國股票市場，以獲得更多機會，維持中國與美國的經濟關係。股市資金可以為公司所用，促進美國經濟增長。
否則，美國經濟蕭條不可避免地導致美聯儲印鈔量愈來愈大。儘管美國政府可以還清債務，投資者卻只會獲得貶值嚴重的美元。
貨幣不會停滯，需要流通。一群人或一個國家積攢下很多資金時，這些資金將通過再循環轉移到願意消費這些錢的人手中。積累的資金就成了白紙一張，只不過證明了前者是股東或者債權人。長期貿易盈餘會導致失敗的投資，通過泡沫來創造需求。
因此，如果有誰想儲存資金，前提是其必須是非常優秀的投資者。比如，巴菲特就有資格囤積大量的資金，因為其投資富有成果，通過投資促進了經濟增長，而且遠超過其投資回報。同理，如果一個國家一直持續保持較高水平的貿易盈餘，那就必須捫心自問，是否能像巴菲特一樣優秀。
患在不均
世界經濟正經歷二次探底。金融市場一片恐慌，造成2011年8月的市值減少了10萬億美元。許多權威人士必將提出許多方法，恢復世界經濟。但這些辦法肯定不會奏效，因其都在刺激需求的臨時增加。世界經濟的問題在於有錢人不想花錢，想花錢的人卻沒有錢，比如，貿易順差國和貿易逆差國，富裕家庭和貧困家庭，現金充足的公司和無業工人。
世界上有很多錢，低利率就證明了這一點。但是，資金分配過於不均，世界經濟因此而無法正常運行。增加貨幣量無法解決這一問題。
在大部分經濟體中，企業現金充足，但失業率也是居高不下。如果企業對未來預期悲觀，不願投資，其預期就將自我實現，因為高失業率會讓經濟持續衰弱。全球化加劇了收入不均。僅憑刺激政策是無法解決的。
陷入困境的全球經濟終將通過摧毀賬面財富並重新分配給大眾的方式來實現再平衡。這些方式主要包括違約、資產虧損、通貨膨脹或稅收。全球經濟在20世紀30年代曾經經歷相似的挑戰。各國都採用自己的方式來實現再平衡。德國經歷了惡性通貨膨脹，美國則經歷了資產虧損和債務違約。
當前債務危機的後果是通脹和在未來幾年內出現負利率，同時資產價格將會保持不變或下降。隨著時間流逝，通脹會緩解債務人的壓力。在某個時間點上，他們可以有更多的錢來消費。我不知道這個過程會持續多久，可能需要十年。
要使全球經濟運行正常，一個不知道如何對貿易盈餘進行明智投資的國家就不該有貿易盈餘；一個不知道如何處理利潤的企業就不該有高額利潤；一個不知道如何理財的人就不該存錢。除非能夠明智投資，否則賺錢的能力對世界就是一種傷害。
由於通脹、資產通縮或違約，資金囤積者在這個十年將會遭受困難。這是過去20年資金積累的必然終點。
龐氏騙局
德國人抱怨希臘人是騙子，竄改賬本來借錢。中國抱怨美國欠債成癮。但是，孤掌難鳴。若非有人響應，希臘人和美國人是無法維持這些壞習慣的。
人類為了以後的安全或是不時之需而攢錢。但從整體來看，錢還是要花的。如果每個人都想攢錢，那麼經濟就無法正常運行了。通過假設工作的人攢錢，退休的人花費積蓄，經濟學解決了這一問題。利率讓這兩者達到了很好的平衡。這種模式正常運行的條件是人是理性經濟人，管理其經濟的制度都是相同的。然而假設與現實大相徑庭。一些人攢錢的欲望要比其他人強烈得多。這種人通常會集中在一個民族或一個國家。這些錢必須從這些民族或國家流動到其他民族或國家。否則，全球經濟就無法正常運行。
然而，如果資金從前者到後者的流動效率低下，也就是說後者沒有建立賺錢的能力，那麼危機就不可避免。因為人總是本性難移，所以危機總是在所難免。
從2000年到2010年，德國積累了1.64萬億歐元的貿易盈餘，中國為1.35萬億美元，日本為5120億美元。79%的德國貿易盈餘直接來自其他歐盟國家。由於中國對德國有貿易赤字，而對其他大多數歐盟國家都有貿易盈餘，因此，所有德國貿易盈餘均直接或間接地來自其他歐盟國家。現在情況仍然如此。
德國累積的盈餘跟其他歐盟國家主權債務規模差不多。對於問題重重的歐盟各國，其來自國外的資金基本上都是德國的累積盈餘。
歐元的發行在歐元區創立了一個新的貨幣環境。資本市場假設成員國經濟體不會違背1997年《穩定與增長條約》。市場在條約簽訂之前便做出如此假設，並使意大利和西班牙這些國家的利率降低到德國的水平。由於存在其貨幣貶值的預期，這些國家的利率原先都很高。進入歐元區以後，這種風險似乎已經消失了，因此降低利率是合理的。
儘管《穩定和增長條約》限制了財政赤字額，這些國家的私有部門還是可以繼續以高利率借錢。高利率使得借錢給它們的人就像消費者看到了大減價一樣。當歐元區經濟低迷之際，幾乎所有人都會違背赤字限制。借貸熱潮所引發的高需求，導致從德國進口商品。德國則通過銀行體係將盈餘轉移到借錢的國家。
這是一場龐氏騙局。只要德國相信其他國家最終會還錢，騙局就可以維持。而一旦市場信任感消失，騙局就無法再繼續。如果沒有歐元，這些國家不可能會借到這麼多錢，德國也就不可能有這麼大的貿易盈餘。
德國最好的出路就是由歐洲央行發行貨幣將損失貨幣化。這樣至少會將損失蔓延給歐元區的所有人。如果德國拒絕這麼做，那麼欠款所造成的大部分損失都將由德國承擔。德國在解決危機的過程中會挽救歐元，他們也希望歐元能像德國馬克一樣堅挺，債務人最終也會還錢，但是最終，德國可能還是會選擇犧牲歐元。
到目前為止，德國一直是最大的貿易盈餘國。中國、日本和石油輸出國的貿易盈餘也相當可觀。德國的貿易盈餘主要通過循環回到其他歐盟成員國，而中國、日本和石油輸出國的貿易盈餘卻進入美國的國債市場，因為其貨幣與美元掛鉤，而不是歐元。這些國家貿易盈餘主要來自美國，所以其貿易盈餘要投回美國，以支持本國的匯率政策。
歐元區的債務危機對美國國債市場來說是有利的。市場不會像以前那樣向歐元區國家提供貸款。這些資金轉移到了國債市場。儘管美國的財政赤字比所有遭受債務危機的歐元區國家要高，國債收益率卻有所下降。因此，上述這些國家似乎比德國擁有更多財富。但是，這些國家和美國的動態關係，恰如德國和其他飽受債務危機所累的歐元區經濟體的關係。建立在貿易失衡基礎上的經濟模式，宛如龐氏騙局。德國現在的命運可能是中國未來的寫照。
盈餘困境
如果一個國家無法在國外明智投資，那麼它首先就不應該賺取貿易盈餘，否則就會傷及自己和其他國家。首先，很可能在國內產生泡沫，因為貿易盈餘對貨幣供應會造成影響。其次，這會讓人們獲得傻錢，造成其他國家的泡沫。到目前為止，沒有一個貿易順差較大的國家做出過明智的投資。
如果世界上只有兩個國家，那麼儲蓄率高的國家最後會擁有另一個國家。但事實上，一個主權國家不可能由另一個主權國所擁有。主權國家總是可以通過將外企國有化和拖欠外債來解決問題。因此，任何一個國家，如果永遠賺取較大貿易盈餘，那麼它並不聰明。所有為獲取貿易盈餘付出的努力最後都會化為烏有。
對外投資要取得很好的收益，前提是其所投資的國家經濟增長，並且不介意與外國投資者分享經濟增長的成果。但是這兩種條件很少同時滿足。這也是長期貿易失衡會造成經濟危機的原因。
如果中國要維持對美國的貿易順差，中國的投資必須要推動美國經濟增長。但是投資於國債不會達到這一目的，因為政府支出效率沒有那麼高。中國應該進入美國股票市場，以獲得更多機會，維持中國與美國的經濟關係。股市資金可以為公司所用，促進美國經濟增長。
否則，美國經濟蕭條不可避免地導致美聯儲印鈔量愈來愈大。儘管美國政府可以還清債務，投資者卻只會獲得貶值嚴重的美元。
貨幣不會停滯，需要流通。一群人或一個國家積攢下很多資金時，這些資金將通過再循環轉移到願意消費這些錢的人手中。積累的資金就成了白紙一張，只不過證明了前者是股東或者債權人。長期貿易盈餘會導致失敗的投資，通過泡沫來創造需求。
因此，如果有誰想儲存資金，前提是其必須是非常優秀的投資者。比如，巴菲特就有資格囤積大量的資金，因為其投資富有成果，通過投資促進了經濟增長，而且遠超過其投資回報。同理，如果一個國家一直持續保持較高水平的貿易盈餘，那就必須捫心自問，是否能像巴菲特一樣優秀。
患在不均
世界經濟正經歷二次探底。金融市場一片恐慌，造成2011年8月的市值減少了10萬億美元。許多權威人士必將提出許多方法，恢復世界經濟。但這些辦法肯定不會奏效，因其都在刺激需求的臨時增加。世界經濟的問題在於有錢人不想花錢，想花錢的人卻沒有錢，比如，貿易順差國和貿易逆差國，富裕家庭和貧困家庭，現金充足的公司和無業工人。
世界上有很多錢，低利率就證明了這一點。但是，資金分配過於不均，世界經濟因此而無法正常運行。增加貨幣量無法解決這一問題。
在大部分經濟體中，企業現金充足，但失業率也是居高不下。如果企業對未來預期悲觀，不願投資，其預期就將自我實現，因為高失業率會讓經濟持續衰弱。全球化加劇了收入不均。僅憑刺激政策是無法解決的。
陷入困境的全球經濟終將通過摧毀賬面財富並重新分配給大眾的方式來實現再平衡。這些方式主要包括違約、資產虧損、通貨膨脹或稅收。全球經濟在20世紀30年代曾經經歷相似的挑戰。各國都採用自己的方式來實現再平衡。德國經歷了惡性通貨膨脹，美國則經歷了資產虧損和債務違約。
當前債務危機的後果是通脹和在未來幾年內出現負利率，同時資產價格將會保持不變或下降。隨著時間流逝，通脹會緩解債務人的壓力。在某個時間點上，他們可以有更多的錢來消費。我不知道這個過程會持續多久，可能需要十年。
S&P 500 Falls to Reagan Recession Values
S&P 500 Falls to Reagan Recession Values
By Inyoung Hwang - Aug 29, 2011 9:56 PM GMT+0800
The last time stocks in the index were cheaper on average during a recession was the early 1980s, a decade when the index surged 227 percent, or 403 percent including reinvested dividends. Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg
Play Video
Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Ajay Kapur, head of Asian equity strategy at Deutsche Bank AG, talks about the resignation of Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs, global equity markets and his investment strategy. Kapur speaks in Hong Kong with John Dawson, Haslinda Amin and Zeb Eckert. (Source: Bloomberg)
Investors are paying less for equities than they have during every recession since Ronald Reagan was president amid growing concern that the economy is on the edge of another recession.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has lost 13 percent in the past five weeks, sending its price-earnings ratio down to 12.9. That’s 3.5 percent less than the average multiple during the 10 contractions since 1949 and a level last reached in 1982, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Bears say valuations show the U.S. remains in the slowdown that began in 2007. Unlike under Reagan, when U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker raised borrowing costs as high as 20 percent to combat inflation, interest rates are already near zero, leaving policy makers fewer tools to boost the economy, they say. Bulls say the ratios are so low because they reflect indiscriminate selling by investors convinced that any slowdown will turn into a repeat of the 2008 credit crisis.
“There are truly some terrific values out there in companies, but it’s a question of timing,” John Massey, a Jersey City, New Jersey-based fund manager who helps oversee $13 billion at SunAmerica Asset Management, said in a telephone interview on Aug. 26. “Right now, the market is very short-term sighted. Every day the market is up or down, and it’s much more of a macro call than anything else.”
$2.3 Trillion Drop
About $2.3 trillion has been erased from the market value of U.S. equities since the S&P 500’s recent high on July 22 after reports on housing and manufacturing trailed estimates, Europe’s debt crisis worsened and S&P stripped the U.S. of its AAA credit rating. The last time stocks in the index were cheaper on average during a recession was the early 1980s, a decade when the index surged 227 percent, or 403 percent including reinvested dividends.
At the Aug. 26 close of 1,176.80, the S&P 500 traded at 10.8 times analysts’ forecast for profits in the next 12 months of $109.12 a share. For the P/E ratio to reach its five-decade average of 16.4 without shares appreciating, earnings would have to fall to about $71.76 a share, 22 percent below the last 12 months, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
Should companies meet analysts’ profit estimates, the S&P 500 must advance to about 1,790 to trade at the average multiple of 16.4 since 1954, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s more than 50 percent above its last close. The S&P 500 gained 1.8 percent at 9:55 a.m. in New York today.
Worst Performers
Energy, financial and industrial companies have performed worst out of 10 groups in the S&P 500 in the past month, falling more than 16 percent, as investors fled so-called cyclical stocks that are most tied to economic growth. Utilities and makers of household products posted the smallest losses.
The index rallied 1.5 percent on Aug. 26, for the first weekly gain since July, after Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Aug. 26 during a speech in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, that the economy isn’t deteriorating enough to warrant any immediate stimulus. Optimism the U.S. will avoid a recession helped offset a Commerce Department report showing gross domestic product climbed at 1 percent in the second quarter, down from a 1.3 percent estimate.
The economy grew at a 0.4 percent annual pace in the first quarter of 2011, the slowest since the second quarter of 2009, when the recession had yet to end, according to data compiled by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Reagan Inflation
Runaway inflation at the start of Reagan’s presidency in 1981 spurred Volcker to lift the Fed funds rate, pushing the U.S. economy into a recession until November 1982. The S&P 500’s multiple sank to an average of 8 times earnings as record-high interest rates and 10-year Treasury yields above 15 percent reduced the appeal of equities. Rates dropped through the decade, helping fuel the equity rally.
Bernanke has held the target rate for overnight loans between banks near zero since December 2008 and pledged this month to keep it there through mid-2013.
“The Fed’s used up a lot of their big ammunition already,” Bruce Bittles, who helps oversee $85 billion as chief investment strategist at Milwaukee-based Robert W. Baird & Co., said in an Aug. 26 phone interview. “With earnings expectations coming down, P/E ratios are likely to remain lower than anticipated as well.”
Cheaper Valuations
During the credit crisis, the world’s largest economy shrank the most in any recession since the 1930s, according to the Commerce Department. Quarterly earnings among S&P 500 companies have almost doubled since ending an eight-period decline in September 2009. Valuations declined as the stock prices advanced at a slower rate, with the index climbing 11 percent since Sept. 30, 2009, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
For TCW Group Inc.’s Komal Sri-Kumar, valuations must be lower to be attractive because the economy is stagnating. The S&P 500 has declined 10 percent since the start of June, the last month of the Fed’s second program of quantitative easing, known as QE2, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
“Stocks have been at very high levels compared with a very weak economy,” Sri-Kumar, the chief global strategist at TCW, which oversees about $120 billion, said in a phone interview on Aug. 24. “When QE2 was introduced last August, you got a rally in equities prices for several months, but you didn’t get a big push up in economic growth.”
Sri-Kumar recommended defensive stocks in the consumer staples, utility and health-care industries.
Consumer Products
Procter & Gamble Co. (PG), the Cincinnati-based maker of Gillette razors, has slipped 2.6 percent since July 26, compared with a 13 percent decline by the S&P 500. This month, the world’s largest consumer-products company said 2011 revenue topped analysts’ estimates and reported a 15 percent increase in fourth-quarter profit on sales from emerging markets.
For Blackstone Group LP’s Byron Wien and Gamco Investors Inc.’s Howard Ward, the decline in valuations will prove temporary as investors buy back shares they sold in a panic after the U.S. lost its AAA credit rating at S&P.
General Electric Co. (GE) has fallen 15 percent this year even after reporting profits that topped analysts’ estimates in the first two quarters. CEO Jeff Immelt said last month that industrial earnings and sales should increase in the second half of 2011 and accelerate into 2012. While analysts estimate profit at the Fairfield, Connecticut-based company will jump 21 percent this year, shares are trading at their lowest valuation since 2009.
Market Decline
“Too much has been read into the stock market’s decline,” Ward, who helps oversee $35 million in Rye, New York, wrote in an Aug. 24 e-mail.
Corporate earnings are growing fast enough to boost equities, he said. Per-share profit at S&P 500 companies will rise 13 percent in 2012, the fourth straight year of increases, according to analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
Alcoa Inc. (AA), the country’s largest aluminum producer, and Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), the world’s biggest maker of construction and mining equipment, were among the worst performers in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the last month, falling 25 percent and 19 percent through Aug. 26, respectively. Analysts estimate earnings will jump 21 percent in 2012 at New York-based Alcoa and 33 percent at Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar.
“The market’s anticipating economic growth will slow and earnings estimates are going to have to come lower,” Mark Bronzo, who helps manage $26 billion at Security Global Investors in Irvington, New York, said in a telephone interview on Aug. 24. “My gut is the stock market is attractive at these levels and we won’t go into a recession. We’ll be in a sluggish growth environment and eventually stocks will do better.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Inyoung Hwang in New York at ihwang7@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Nick Baker at nbaker7@bloomberg.net
By Inyoung Hwang - Aug 29, 2011 9:56 PM GMT+0800
The last time stocks in the index were cheaper on average during a recession was the early 1980s, a decade when the index surged 227 percent, or 403 percent including reinvested dividends. Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg
Play Video
Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Ajay Kapur, head of Asian equity strategy at Deutsche Bank AG, talks about the resignation of Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs, global equity markets and his investment strategy. Kapur speaks in Hong Kong with John Dawson, Haslinda Amin and Zeb Eckert. (Source: Bloomberg)
Investors are paying less for equities than they have during every recession since Ronald Reagan was president amid growing concern that the economy is on the edge of another recession.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has lost 13 percent in the past five weeks, sending its price-earnings ratio down to 12.9. That’s 3.5 percent less than the average multiple during the 10 contractions since 1949 and a level last reached in 1982, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Bears say valuations show the U.S. remains in the slowdown that began in 2007. Unlike under Reagan, when U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker raised borrowing costs as high as 20 percent to combat inflation, interest rates are already near zero, leaving policy makers fewer tools to boost the economy, they say. Bulls say the ratios are so low because they reflect indiscriminate selling by investors convinced that any slowdown will turn into a repeat of the 2008 credit crisis.
“There are truly some terrific values out there in companies, but it’s a question of timing,” John Massey, a Jersey City, New Jersey-based fund manager who helps oversee $13 billion at SunAmerica Asset Management, said in a telephone interview on Aug. 26. “Right now, the market is very short-term sighted. Every day the market is up or down, and it’s much more of a macro call than anything else.”
$2.3 Trillion Drop
About $2.3 trillion has been erased from the market value of U.S. equities since the S&P 500’s recent high on July 22 after reports on housing and manufacturing trailed estimates, Europe’s debt crisis worsened and S&P stripped the U.S. of its AAA credit rating. The last time stocks in the index were cheaper on average during a recession was the early 1980s, a decade when the index surged 227 percent, or 403 percent including reinvested dividends.
At the Aug. 26 close of 1,176.80, the S&P 500 traded at 10.8 times analysts’ forecast for profits in the next 12 months of $109.12 a share. For the P/E ratio to reach its five-decade average of 16.4 without shares appreciating, earnings would have to fall to about $71.76 a share, 22 percent below the last 12 months, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
Should companies meet analysts’ profit estimates, the S&P 500 must advance to about 1,790 to trade at the average multiple of 16.4 since 1954, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s more than 50 percent above its last close. The S&P 500 gained 1.8 percent at 9:55 a.m. in New York today.
Worst Performers
Energy, financial and industrial companies have performed worst out of 10 groups in the S&P 500 in the past month, falling more than 16 percent, as investors fled so-called cyclical stocks that are most tied to economic growth. Utilities and makers of household products posted the smallest losses.
The index rallied 1.5 percent on Aug. 26, for the first weekly gain since July, after Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Aug. 26 during a speech in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, that the economy isn’t deteriorating enough to warrant any immediate stimulus. Optimism the U.S. will avoid a recession helped offset a Commerce Department report showing gross domestic product climbed at 1 percent in the second quarter, down from a 1.3 percent estimate.
The economy grew at a 0.4 percent annual pace in the first quarter of 2011, the slowest since the second quarter of 2009, when the recession had yet to end, according to data compiled by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Reagan Inflation
Runaway inflation at the start of Reagan’s presidency in 1981 spurred Volcker to lift the Fed funds rate, pushing the U.S. economy into a recession until November 1982. The S&P 500’s multiple sank to an average of 8 times earnings as record-high interest rates and 10-year Treasury yields above 15 percent reduced the appeal of equities. Rates dropped through the decade, helping fuel the equity rally.
Bernanke has held the target rate for overnight loans between banks near zero since December 2008 and pledged this month to keep it there through mid-2013.
“The Fed’s used up a lot of their big ammunition already,” Bruce Bittles, who helps oversee $85 billion as chief investment strategist at Milwaukee-based Robert W. Baird & Co., said in an Aug. 26 phone interview. “With earnings expectations coming down, P/E ratios are likely to remain lower than anticipated as well.”
Cheaper Valuations
During the credit crisis, the world’s largest economy shrank the most in any recession since the 1930s, according to the Commerce Department. Quarterly earnings among S&P 500 companies have almost doubled since ending an eight-period decline in September 2009. Valuations declined as the stock prices advanced at a slower rate, with the index climbing 11 percent since Sept. 30, 2009, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
For TCW Group Inc.’s Komal Sri-Kumar, valuations must be lower to be attractive because the economy is stagnating. The S&P 500 has declined 10 percent since the start of June, the last month of the Fed’s second program of quantitative easing, known as QE2, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
“Stocks have been at very high levels compared with a very weak economy,” Sri-Kumar, the chief global strategist at TCW, which oversees about $120 billion, said in a phone interview on Aug. 24. “When QE2 was introduced last August, you got a rally in equities prices for several months, but you didn’t get a big push up in economic growth.”
Sri-Kumar recommended defensive stocks in the consumer staples, utility and health-care industries.
Consumer Products
Procter & Gamble Co. (PG), the Cincinnati-based maker of Gillette razors, has slipped 2.6 percent since July 26, compared with a 13 percent decline by the S&P 500. This month, the world’s largest consumer-products company said 2011 revenue topped analysts’ estimates and reported a 15 percent increase in fourth-quarter profit on sales from emerging markets.
For Blackstone Group LP’s Byron Wien and Gamco Investors Inc.’s Howard Ward, the decline in valuations will prove temporary as investors buy back shares they sold in a panic after the U.S. lost its AAA credit rating at S&P.
General Electric Co. (GE) has fallen 15 percent this year even after reporting profits that topped analysts’ estimates in the first two quarters. CEO Jeff Immelt said last month that industrial earnings and sales should increase in the second half of 2011 and accelerate into 2012. While analysts estimate profit at the Fairfield, Connecticut-based company will jump 21 percent this year, shares are trading at their lowest valuation since 2009.
Market Decline
“Too much has been read into the stock market’s decline,” Ward, who helps oversee $35 million in Rye, New York, wrote in an Aug. 24 e-mail.
Corporate earnings are growing fast enough to boost equities, he said. Per-share profit at S&P 500 companies will rise 13 percent in 2012, the fourth straight year of increases, according to analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
Alcoa Inc. (AA), the country’s largest aluminum producer, and Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), the world’s biggest maker of construction and mining equipment, were among the worst performers in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the last month, falling 25 percent and 19 percent through Aug. 26, respectively. Analysts estimate earnings will jump 21 percent in 2012 at New York-based Alcoa and 33 percent at Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar.
“The market’s anticipating economic growth will slow and earnings estimates are going to have to come lower,” Mark Bronzo, who helps manage $26 billion at Security Global Investors in Irvington, New York, said in a telephone interview on Aug. 24. “My gut is the stock market is attractive at these levels and we won’t go into a recession. We’ll be in a sluggish growth environment and eventually stocks will do better.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Inyoung Hwang in New York at ihwang7@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Nick Baker at nbaker7@bloomberg.net
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — One of Taiwan's best regarded hospitals transplanted organs from an HIV carrier into five patients, a hospital official said Monday, in what appears to be one of the most egregious examples of medical negligence in the island's modern history
Taiwan hospital transplants 5 HIV-infected organs
By ANNIE HUANG - Associated Press | AP – 14 mins ago
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — One of Taiwan's best regarded hospitals transplanted organs from an HIV carrier into five patients, a hospital official said Monday, in what appears to be one of the most egregious examples of medical negligence in the island's modern history.
The five are now being treated with anti-AIDS drugs, said the official at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because she is not authorized to deal with the media.
In a posting on its website over the weekend, the hospital said the mistake occurred because a transplant staffer believed he heard the English word "non-reactive" on the donor's standard HIV test, which means negative, while the word "reactive" was actually given.
The hospital added that the information on the test result was given over the telephone and was not double-checked, as required by standard operating procedures.
"We deeply apologize for the mistake," the hospital said.
Shih Chung-liang, a Health Department official, said a department team will look into the mistaken transplants and decide on possible penalties for NTUH. If negligence was found to have caused the blunder, Shih said the hospital may have to suspend its transplant programs for up to a year in addition to unspecified fines.
The donor was a 37-year-old man who fell into a coma on Aug. 24 and his heart, liver, lungs and two kidneys were transplanted to five patients on the same day. The heart transplant was conducted at another hospital, while the four other transplants were conducted at NTUH, according to NTUH.
The donor's mother, who was not identified, told cable news stations that she felt terrible about the transplants and had not been aware of her son's ailment. She said he died after "falling from a high spot," without providing details.
Yao Ke-wu, who heads the health department of Hsinchu city, where the donor resided, decried the NTUH transplants as "appalling negligence."
He said NTUH staffers could have avoided the mistake by asking his department about the donor's medical history in advance, and deplored that such inquiries were not mandatory in Taiwan.
Yao said the five organ receivers will very likely contract HIV, and their anti-AIDS treatment will be further complicated because they also have to take medication to modify rejection of the new organs.
The five recipients are all Taiwanese. NTUH is among about a dozen well-equipped and highly-respected Taiwanese hospitals offering organ transplants.
There are also concerns among the physicians and nurses who conducted the transplants that they too may contract HIV. Medical staffers routinely take protections against bodily fluids during surgeries, but some experts also warned needle and other accidential cuts could still expose them to HIV.
Lee Nan-yao, a physician with the National Chengkung University Hospital, which performed the heart transplant, told the United Daily News that some physicians and nurses who had conducted the transplant "were depressed, and on the verge of panic."
By ANNIE HUANG - Associated Press | AP – 14 mins ago
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — One of Taiwan's best regarded hospitals transplanted organs from an HIV carrier into five patients, a hospital official said Monday, in what appears to be one of the most egregious examples of medical negligence in the island's modern history.
The five are now being treated with anti-AIDS drugs, said the official at National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because she is not authorized to deal with the media.
In a posting on its website over the weekend, the hospital said the mistake occurred because a transplant staffer believed he heard the English word "non-reactive" on the donor's standard HIV test, which means negative, while the word "reactive" was actually given.
The hospital added that the information on the test result was given over the telephone and was not double-checked, as required by standard operating procedures.
"We deeply apologize for the mistake," the hospital said.
Shih Chung-liang, a Health Department official, said a department team will look into the mistaken transplants and decide on possible penalties for NTUH. If negligence was found to have caused the blunder, Shih said the hospital may have to suspend its transplant programs for up to a year in addition to unspecified fines.
The donor was a 37-year-old man who fell into a coma on Aug. 24 and his heart, liver, lungs and two kidneys were transplanted to five patients on the same day. The heart transplant was conducted at another hospital, while the four other transplants were conducted at NTUH, according to NTUH.
The donor's mother, who was not identified, told cable news stations that she felt terrible about the transplants and had not been aware of her son's ailment. She said he died after "falling from a high spot," without providing details.
Yao Ke-wu, who heads the health department of Hsinchu city, where the donor resided, decried the NTUH transplants as "appalling negligence."
He said NTUH staffers could have avoided the mistake by asking his department about the donor's medical history in advance, and deplored that such inquiries were not mandatory in Taiwan.
Yao said the five organ receivers will very likely contract HIV, and their anti-AIDS treatment will be further complicated because they also have to take medication to modify rejection of the new organs.
The five recipients are all Taiwanese. NTUH is among about a dozen well-equipped and highly-respected Taiwanese hospitals offering organ transplants.
There are also concerns among the physicians and nurses who conducted the transplants that they too may contract HIV. Medical staffers routinely take protections against bodily fluids during surgeries, but some experts also warned needle and other accidential cuts could still expose them to HIV.
Lee Nan-yao, a physician with the National Chengkung University Hospital, which performed the heart transplant, told the United Daily News that some physicians and nurses who had conducted the transplant "were depressed, and on the verge of panic."
colonial sucks the people---those worked with colonial are pengkhianat bangsa dan nusa
Malaysia history
Pre colonial area
Malaysia history starts in the first century AD. Two events helped stimulate Malaysia's emergence in international trade in the ancient world. At that time, India had two principal sources of gold and other metals: the Roman Empire and China. The overland route from China was cut by marauding Huns. At about the same time, the Roman Emperor Vespasian cut off shipments of gold to India.
Malacca in colonial times
As a result, India sent large and seaworthy ships, with crews reported to have numbered in the hundreds, to Southeast Asia, including the Malay Peninsula, to seek alternative sources. The Malay Peninsula must have been of some significance. Ptolemy recorded its presence in his map as the 'Chersonesus Aureus'.
In the century that followed the Malays discovered rich tin deposits. This became of great significance in Indian Ocean trade, and the region prospered. The Malays benefited from the maritime trade and the ports flourished. Malay ports served as centers for trade between these trading centers in India, South East Asia and China. The traders brought with them the Hindu-Buddhist culture which became of great influence on the local people.
Malacca historical city center with Stadthuys and Christchurch
The early Buddhist Malay kingdom of Srivijaya, based at what is now Palembang, Sumatra, dominated much of the Malay Peninsula from the 9th to the 13th centuries AD. The powerful Hindu kingdom of Majapahit, based on Java, ruled the Malay Peninsula in the 14th century. Arrival of Muslim traders resulted in the conversion of many Malays to Islam. That process started in the beginning of the early 14th century and accelerated further with the establishment of the Sultanate of Malacca in the 15th century.
Pangkor in ancient times
Many early Malay city states paid tribute to various kingdoms such as the kingdoms of China and Siam. In return for such tribute, a princess of China was gifted to the Sultan of Malacca at the time. Eventually such inter-marriages between local Malays and ethnic Chinese led to a class of straits-born Chinese known as the peranakan. They have a unique culture and distinct foods which is unique to itself. Male peranakan as referred to as Baba and female peranakan are referred to as Nyonya.
Pangkor Island 1897
Colonial era
Malacca was a major regional entrepot, where Chinese, Arab, Malay, and Indian merchants traded precious goods. By sometime in the 1400s Malacca was already a "colony" of China as tribute was paid to the Chinese emperor. However, there was very little interference in habits of the people or policies of the local rulers.
The dawn of European colonialism in Southeast Asia began largely at the start of the 16th Century. Drawn by the vibrant trade, the abundant spice and the large markets, the Portuguese conquered Malacca in 1511, marking the beginning of European expansion in Southeast Asia.
The Dutch ousted the Portuguese from Malacca in 1641. They build a Fort at Pangkor. Click here for more on the Dutch Fort. A century later, in 1795, they themselves were replaced by the British, who had occupied Penang in 1786. During their occupation, the British signed an important Treaty at Pangkor. It was therefore called the "Pangkor Treaty 1874".
It was a treaty signed between the Sir Andrew Clarke on behalf of the British and Raja Abdullah of Perak. The treaty is significant in the Malay states history because it signaled the British official involvement in the Malay states' policies.
Read more about the Pangkor Treaty 1874 which was such an important part of the Malaysian history
In 1826, the British settlements of Malacca, Penang, and Singapore were combined to form the Crown Colony of the Straits Settlements. From these strong points, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the British established protectorates over the Malay sultanates on the peninsula. Four of these states, Penang, Perak, Selangor and Negri Sembilan, were consolidated in 1895 as the Federated Malay States.
States under direct British control ceded their rights of Foreign policy and Military affairs to the British Crown. All other affairs were still controlled by the pre-existing local ruler. However, all rulers were required to host a British advisor and were expected to listen to this advisor even on issues of local administration. Advisors did not interfere in issues regarding local religious practices.
During the British colonial period, a system of public administration was established which included a civil service, public education, transportation, various infrastructure and healthcare.
Resource development was also a mark of the British era. Primary resources including plantations and tin were developed aggressively to fund the empire.
Migrant workers were imported en-masse from India to work in plantations as lowly paid indentured laborers. They were, little better off than slaves or serfs in other parts of the world.
Pasir Salak Museum
Workers from China paid sums to "agents" who would get them well paying jobs in the local tin-mines of the time. The lot of the Chinese worker in Malaya was stark. Often arriving with only his clothes, he would set to work and dream of returning to China with wealth.
Chinese workers had no agency to look after them unlike the plantation structures looking after the Indian workers. As such, many fell back to their traditional clan associations for various social services. Social services included protection, ceremonial needs and the saving of money for repatriation of their corpse and burial in their home village.
Not all of the clan associations were benign and some were local branches of the "Heaven and Earth Society" in China. Sometimes "protection" of their members resulted in rioting and large scale melees. As a result some of these groups were subsequently branded "Secret societies" by the British government and declared illegal. A Chinese Protectorate was also set up to look after the interest of the Chinese people and perform many of the functions previously undertaken by these associations. This resulted in a lessening of the influence these societies had over the Chinese.
Subsequently, the British Government allowed immigration of Chinese woman as well, which was previously disallowed. Once they were allowed to bring their wives (many had more than one) from their home village, it was only a matter of time before some decided to call Malaysia their home.
The British saw an opportunity to plant rubber in the compatible soil so a few trimmings of Hevea brasiliensis were smuggled back to Malaya where a booming trade in rubber soon resulted. Malaysia has since become the world's largest producer of natural latex in the world.
Tea was similarly imported to the hill stations of Malaysia by the British and is still grown today on plantations bearing the colonial names of the large British conglomerates who once helped finance an empire.
British rule was interrupted by the Japanese invasion and occupation from December 1941 to August 1945 during World War II.
Declaration of independence: Merdaka for Malaya
The British rule was not fully accepted by the Malay people. The First Resident, J.W.W. Birch was killed during his mission to enforce British administration in Perak. It was the beginning of the fight for independence which eventually would be reached in 1963. Read more on J.W.W. Birch role in Malaysia history. at Pasir Salak
Post-war reorganization
In 1946, the whole of Malaya (except Singapore, which became a separate crown colony) was consolidated into a crown colony called the Malayan Union. Because of opposition from the Malays the Union was a political failure, and was replaced just two years later by a looser Federation of Malaya in 1948.
In 1948, local communists of the Communist Party of Malaya, nearly all Chinese, launched an insurgency, prompting the imposition of Malayan Emergency (the state of emergency was lifted in 1960). Small bands of guerrillas remained in bases along the rugged border with southern Thailand, occasionally entering northern Malaysia. These guerrillas finally signed a peace accord with the Malaysian government in December 1989.
Popular sentiment for independence swelled during and after the war and the Federation of Malaya negotiated independence from the United Kingdom under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who became the first prime minister. As part of their "Hearts and Minds" anti-communist strategy the British government agreed to give Malaya independence on August 31, 1957. Malaya remained part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and hosted a large British and Commonwealth military presence until the withdrawal of British forces East of Suez in the late 1960s.
Malaysia now
The independent Federation of Malaya combined with the British colonies of Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (renamed Sabah) to form Malaysia on September 16, 1963.
The state's formation was highly controversial, and both the Philippines and Indonesia made claims to parts of East Malaysia. Internal rebellions supporting these claims or regional independence were suppressed by Commonwealth forces and three years of semi-war called Indonesian Confrontation on the borders to Indonesia ensued.
Postwar Penang (postcard, more postcards here)
As a concession to the widespread opposition, Brunei was kept outside the Malaysian federation, but remained under British military protection. The United States decisively agreed to support the formation of Malaysia after a 1964 secret diplomatic deal with the United Kingdom, in return for British support in Vietnam.
As a result of differences between the two governments, and tensions between Chinese and Malays, Singapore left the federation and became an independent republic on August 9, 1965. Continued ethnic tensions led to bloody racial riots in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 1969, which resulted in a two-year state of Emergency, and the subsequent imposition of a New Economic Policy aimed at redistributing wealth to the Malays, who at the time owned 2% of the economy.
http://www.pulau-pangkor.com/Malaysia-history.html
Pre colonial area
Malaysia history starts in the first century AD. Two events helped stimulate Malaysia's emergence in international trade in the ancient world. At that time, India had two principal sources of gold and other metals: the Roman Empire and China. The overland route from China was cut by marauding Huns. At about the same time, the Roman Emperor Vespasian cut off shipments of gold to India.
Malacca in colonial times
As a result, India sent large and seaworthy ships, with crews reported to have numbered in the hundreds, to Southeast Asia, including the Malay Peninsula, to seek alternative sources. The Malay Peninsula must have been of some significance. Ptolemy recorded its presence in his map as the 'Chersonesus Aureus'.
In the century that followed the Malays discovered rich tin deposits. This became of great significance in Indian Ocean trade, and the region prospered. The Malays benefited from the maritime trade and the ports flourished. Malay ports served as centers for trade between these trading centers in India, South East Asia and China. The traders brought with them the Hindu-Buddhist culture which became of great influence on the local people.
Malacca historical city center with Stadthuys and Christchurch
The early Buddhist Malay kingdom of Srivijaya, based at what is now Palembang, Sumatra, dominated much of the Malay Peninsula from the 9th to the 13th centuries AD. The powerful Hindu kingdom of Majapahit, based on Java, ruled the Malay Peninsula in the 14th century. Arrival of Muslim traders resulted in the conversion of many Malays to Islam. That process started in the beginning of the early 14th century and accelerated further with the establishment of the Sultanate of Malacca in the 15th century.
Pangkor in ancient times
Many early Malay city states paid tribute to various kingdoms such as the kingdoms of China and Siam. In return for such tribute, a princess of China was gifted to the Sultan of Malacca at the time. Eventually such inter-marriages between local Malays and ethnic Chinese led to a class of straits-born Chinese known as the peranakan. They have a unique culture and distinct foods which is unique to itself. Male peranakan as referred to as Baba and female peranakan are referred to as Nyonya.
Pangkor Island 1897
Colonial era
Malacca was a major regional entrepot, where Chinese, Arab, Malay, and Indian merchants traded precious goods. By sometime in the 1400s Malacca was already a "colony" of China as tribute was paid to the Chinese emperor. However, there was very little interference in habits of the people or policies of the local rulers.
The dawn of European colonialism in Southeast Asia began largely at the start of the 16th Century. Drawn by the vibrant trade, the abundant spice and the large markets, the Portuguese conquered Malacca in 1511, marking the beginning of European expansion in Southeast Asia.
The Dutch ousted the Portuguese from Malacca in 1641. They build a Fort at Pangkor. Click here for more on the Dutch Fort. A century later, in 1795, they themselves were replaced by the British, who had occupied Penang in 1786. During their occupation, the British signed an important Treaty at Pangkor. It was therefore called the "Pangkor Treaty 1874".
It was a treaty signed between the Sir Andrew Clarke on behalf of the British and Raja Abdullah of Perak. The treaty is significant in the Malay states history because it signaled the British official involvement in the Malay states' policies.
Read more about the Pangkor Treaty 1874 which was such an important part of the Malaysian history
In 1826, the British settlements of Malacca, Penang, and Singapore were combined to form the Crown Colony of the Straits Settlements. From these strong points, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the British established protectorates over the Malay sultanates on the peninsula. Four of these states, Penang, Perak, Selangor and Negri Sembilan, were consolidated in 1895 as the Federated Malay States.
States under direct British control ceded their rights of Foreign policy and Military affairs to the British Crown. All other affairs were still controlled by the pre-existing local ruler. However, all rulers were required to host a British advisor and were expected to listen to this advisor even on issues of local administration. Advisors did not interfere in issues regarding local religious practices.
During the British colonial period, a system of public administration was established which included a civil service, public education, transportation, various infrastructure and healthcare.
Resource development was also a mark of the British era. Primary resources including plantations and tin were developed aggressively to fund the empire.
Migrant workers were imported en-masse from India to work in plantations as lowly paid indentured laborers. They were, little better off than slaves or serfs in other parts of the world.
Pasir Salak Museum
Workers from China paid sums to "agents" who would get them well paying jobs in the local tin-mines of the time. The lot of the Chinese worker in Malaya was stark. Often arriving with only his clothes, he would set to work and dream of returning to China with wealth.
Chinese workers had no agency to look after them unlike the plantation structures looking after the Indian workers. As such, many fell back to their traditional clan associations for various social services. Social services included protection, ceremonial needs and the saving of money for repatriation of their corpse and burial in their home village.
Not all of the clan associations were benign and some were local branches of the "Heaven and Earth Society" in China. Sometimes "protection" of their members resulted in rioting and large scale melees. As a result some of these groups were subsequently branded "Secret societies" by the British government and declared illegal. A Chinese Protectorate was also set up to look after the interest of the Chinese people and perform many of the functions previously undertaken by these associations. This resulted in a lessening of the influence these societies had over the Chinese.
Subsequently, the British Government allowed immigration of Chinese woman as well, which was previously disallowed. Once they were allowed to bring their wives (many had more than one) from their home village, it was only a matter of time before some decided to call Malaysia their home.
The British saw an opportunity to plant rubber in the compatible soil so a few trimmings of Hevea brasiliensis were smuggled back to Malaya where a booming trade in rubber soon resulted. Malaysia has since become the world's largest producer of natural latex in the world.
Tea was similarly imported to the hill stations of Malaysia by the British and is still grown today on plantations bearing the colonial names of the large British conglomerates who once helped finance an empire.
British rule was interrupted by the Japanese invasion and occupation from December 1941 to August 1945 during World War II.
Declaration of independence: Merdaka for Malaya
The British rule was not fully accepted by the Malay people. The First Resident, J.W.W. Birch was killed during his mission to enforce British administration in Perak. It was the beginning of the fight for independence which eventually would be reached in 1963. Read more on J.W.W. Birch role in Malaysia history. at Pasir Salak
Post-war reorganization
In 1946, the whole of Malaya (except Singapore, which became a separate crown colony) was consolidated into a crown colony called the Malayan Union. Because of opposition from the Malays the Union was a political failure, and was replaced just two years later by a looser Federation of Malaya in 1948.
In 1948, local communists of the Communist Party of Malaya, nearly all Chinese, launched an insurgency, prompting the imposition of Malayan Emergency (the state of emergency was lifted in 1960). Small bands of guerrillas remained in bases along the rugged border with southern Thailand, occasionally entering northern Malaysia. These guerrillas finally signed a peace accord with the Malaysian government in December 1989.
Popular sentiment for independence swelled during and after the war and the Federation of Malaya negotiated independence from the United Kingdom under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who became the first prime minister. As part of their "Hearts and Minds" anti-communist strategy the British government agreed to give Malaya independence on August 31, 1957. Malaya remained part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and hosted a large British and Commonwealth military presence until the withdrawal of British forces East of Suez in the late 1960s.
Malaysia now
The independent Federation of Malaya combined with the British colonies of Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (renamed Sabah) to form Malaysia on September 16, 1963.
The state's formation was highly controversial, and both the Philippines and Indonesia made claims to parts of East Malaysia. Internal rebellions supporting these claims or regional independence were suppressed by Commonwealth forces and three years of semi-war called Indonesian Confrontation on the borders to Indonesia ensued.
Postwar Penang (postcard, more postcards here)
As a concession to the widespread opposition, Brunei was kept outside the Malaysian federation, but remained under British military protection. The United States decisively agreed to support the formation of Malaysia after a 1964 secret diplomatic deal with the United Kingdom, in return for British support in Vietnam.
As a result of differences between the two governments, and tensions between Chinese and Malays, Singapore left the federation and became an independent republic on August 9, 1965. Continued ethnic tensions led to bloody racial riots in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 1969, which resulted in a two-year state of Emergency, and the subsequent imposition of a New Economic Policy aimed at redistributing wealth to the Malays, who at the time owned 2% of the economy.
http://www.pulau-pangkor.com/Malaysia-history.html
british colonial empire--sucks the people
British Empire
English soldier Robert Clive, one of the founders of British colonial rule in India. Famous as ‘Clive of India’, his military ability in the service of the East India Company secured British supremacy against the French, while his administrative skills underpinned the reform of colonial government. Returning to England in 1767, he was implicated in a corruption scandal and, although exonerated, he later committed suicide.
Empire covering, at its height in the 1920s, about a sixth of the landmass of the Earth, all of its lands recognizing the United Kingdom (UK) as their leader. It consisted of the Empire of India, four self-governing countries known as dominions, and dozens of colonies and territories. The Empire was a source of great pride to the British, who believed that it was an institution for civilizing the world, and for many years Empire Day (24 May) saw celebration throughout the UK. After World War II it began to dissolve as colony after colony became independent, and in 2001 the UK had only 13 small dependent territories. With 53 other independent countries, it forms the British Commonwealth. Although Britain's monarch is accepted as head of the Commonwealth, most of its member states are republics.
The present Commonwealth is a voluntary association of independent states. Only one of its members, Mozambique, which joined in 1995, was never a British colony (it was Portuguese). The Commonwealth's links are mainly cultural and economic, depending upon the fact that the English language is the lingua franca of all educated people in the territories that formed the British Empire, on the continuing ties of trade, and on the financial and technical aid provided by the economically developed members to the developing members.
Early empire
The story of the British Empire began in 1497 when the Italian seafarer John Cabot sailed across the Atlantic Ocean in the service of King Henry VII of England and reached Newfoundland. In 1583 the explorer Sir Humphrey Gilbert took possession of Newfoundland for Elizabeth I. By this time the Portuguese and Spanish had divided between them a considerable part of the Earth's land surface. England was already a formidable power at sea, but its seafarers were mainly freebooters (lawless adventurers) engaged in trade, piracy, and slavery. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 reinforced English sea power, which continued to be mostly privately organized. Unlike the Spanish and Portuguese, the English in the 16th century were neither missionaries nor colonists. England was a poor country, lacking the wealth of Portugal and Spain; when the English put to sea it was to seek immediate profits.
17th century
This pattern began to change in the 17th century. Between 1623 and 1632 English settlers occupied St Kitts, Barbados, St Croix (later lost), Nevis, Antigua, and Montserrat. In 1655, Oliver Cromwell's forces took Jamaica from the Spanish, who officially acknowledged British ownership in 1760. British Honduras (now Belize) was governed as part of Jamaica until 1884, and the tiny South Atlantic island of St Helena was annexed in 1673. The attraction of the West Indies for the English lay in the sugar and rum produced there. Virginia, the first permanent English colony in mainland America, was established in 1607 by the Virginia Company, which also took over Bermuda in about 1612. Shortly after this, in 1620, the Pilgrim Fathers landed from the ship Mayflower to found the colony of Massachusetts. By 1733, the English had established 13 colonies along the Atlantic seaboard between French Canada and Spanish Florida. The colonists began to plant cotton in the 17th century, and this plantation crop was being grown on a very large scale by the late 18th century.
18th century
In 1707 England had united with Scotland to form, as Great Britain, the largest free-trade area then existing, and by the late 18th century Britain had become the leading industrial nation. Its main pattern of trade was based on the triangular trade route: British ships took manufactured goods and spirits to West Africa to exchange for slaves, whom they transported to the West Indies and the southernmost of the 13 colonies. The ships then returned to Britain with cargoes of cotton, rum, sugar, and tobacco, produced mainly by the labour of the black slaves. Britain's prosperity was bound up with the slave trade until this became illegal in 1807. By that time the importance of the slave trade had diminished and other forms of commerce had become more profitable. With other western European nations, the British had already established a string of forts in West Africa to safeguard the trade in slaves, gold, and ivory.
In 1756–63 the Seven Years' War against France – which included the capture of Québec (1759) by James Wolfe, the incident of the Black Hole of Calcutta (1756), and Robert Clive's victory at the Battle of Plassey (1757), India – resulted in Britain acquiring lands in Canada and India, more islands in the West Indies, and Gibraltar. Although the 13 colonies on the North Atlantic seaboard won independence as the United States of America in the American Revolution (1776–83), Britain acquired the Bahamas in 1783, and the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars – including the victory at the Battle of Trafalgar (1805) by Admiral Horatio Nelson – enabled Britain to add Malta, St Lucia, Grenada, Dominica, St Vincent, Trinidad, Tobago, part of Guiana (now Guyana), Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), the Seychelles, and Cape Colony (now part of South Africa) to its empire.
Spread of science
In the 17th and 18th centuries the British ruling class developed a great interest in science, which had repercussions on the growth of the British Empire. Between 1768 and 1779 scientific naval expeditions commanded by Captain James Cook explored islands and coasts of the Pacific Ocean, from the entrance to the Arctic Ocean at the Bering Strait to the then unknown coasts of New Zealand and Australia.
Successive British governments showed no more interest in annexing these southern lands than they had in places elsewhere. In most cases they left the building of the empire to private individuals such as William Penn (who founded Pennsylvania) or to chartered companies, the most famous of which was the East India Company (1660–1858). An important exception was in the West Indies, where government intervention was frequent because many members of Parliament had commercial interests there.
Convict settlements
One reason for the British government's interest in the 13 American colonies was as a dumping ground for convicts, debtors, and political prisoners, many of whom were sentenced to transportation rather than to gaol or the gallows (at that time the law provided the death sentence for stealing a sheep). American independence posed the problem for Britain of where to send its surplus prison population, so in 1788 a new convict settlement was established in Australia at Botany Bay in New South Wales, near where Sydney is now located. This territory had been recently discovered by the voyages of James Cook.
19th century
Britain annexed New Zealand in 1840, Tristan da Cunha in 1816, the Falkland Islands in 1833, and Papua in 1884. In 1878 Turkey handed over Cyprus to a British administration.
India
At the heart of the British Empire was India, which was controlled not by the government but by the East India Company, whose power extended from Aden (annexed in 1839) in Arabia to Penang (leased in 1786) in Malaya. Both places were vital ports of call for company vessels travelling between Britain, India, and China. Politically, the East India Company was the most powerful private company in history. It controlled India partly by direct rule and partly by a system of alliances with Indian princes, whose powers and security were backed by the company's powerful army. Finally, in 1857, a mutiny by its Indian troops terminated the company's affairs, and in 1858 the British government took over its functions. In 1877, Benjamin Disraeli, then prime minister, made Queen Victoria Empress of India. Her new empire included present-day India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and most of Myanmar (Burma). In 1887 the nearby Maldive Islands became a British protectorate.
Imperialism
By this time British policy was becoming imperialistic. In the last quarter of the 19th century Britain tended to annex countries not just for commercial gain but for reasons of national prestige. The commercial operations of the East India Company extended into the East Indies, a vast area that had come under Dutch control. When the Netherlands were occupied by the French under Napoleon (1793–1815), the East India Company occupied parts of the Dutch East Indies, including Malacca (now called Melaka) in 1795. Malacca was briefly restored to the Dutch in 1818, but the Anglo–Dutch Treaty of 1824 recognized the Malay Peninsula as being within the British sphere of influence, and in 1825 the Dutch exchanged Malacca for Benkoelen in Sumatra. When the British government took over from the East India Company it also acquired the Straits Settlements. These comprised Penang (ceded to the Company by the sultan of Kedah in 1786), Malacca, and Singapore, founded by Stamford Raffles in 1819. Increasingly the British became involved in the affairs of the Malay Sultanates, several of which sought British protection from the domination of Siam (now Thailand). By 1914 all of Malaya was under British control. In Borneo, Sarawak had become the personal possession of James Brooke, a freebooting, British ex-soldier of the East India Company. Present-day Sabah became a British protectorate in 1888, following concessions made to the British North Borneo Company by the sultan of Salu in 1777–78. Also in 1888, the once powerful adjoining sultanate of Brunei, which had formerly possessed Sarawak and Sabah, itself came under British protection.
This vast empire had been assembled without any coordinated plan, and it was held together and administered by whatever means seemed most expedient for a particular place. Pirates, traders, soldiers, explorers, financial speculators, missionaries, convicts, and refugees all played a part in creating the British Empire, but increasingly British governments were drawn in to maintain it. To protect India's northwest frontier, the British army fought two wars with Afghanistan (1839–41 and 1878–80) and in 1904 invaded Tibet.
Hong Kong
The acquisition of Hong Kong was typical of the way in which western countries seized colonies between about 1840 and 1890. In 1839 China stopped the importation by the East India Company of opium, which China complained was having a debilitating effect upon its people. When British and American ships defied the ban, Chinese officials publicly destroyed 20,000 cases of the drug. Faced with the collapse of its Far Eastern operations (for without the opium trade it was not financially viable), the East India Company persuaded the British government, then led by Lord Palmerston, to declare war on China. As a result of the Opium War, Britain gained Hong Kong island. Kowloon was added to the colony after a second Opium War (1856–58) and more mainland territory was taken in 1898.
Colonizing Africa
Before the 1880s the British showed little interest in Africa apart from Cape Colony, although the Scottish explorer Mungo Park explored the Niger River 1795–97. However, during the 19th century, there developed a ‘scramble for Africa’. This was partly to secure the mineral wealth of the continent, partly to secure markets against foreign competition, partly to spread Christianity and British culture, and partly to provide an outlet for British adventurers. The first large group of British settlers landed in the Cape in 1820. They were bitterly resented by the Boers, the descendants of Dutch Protestants who had settled in the Cape nearly 200 years earlier. When slavery was ended throughout the British Empire in 1833, the Boers were forced to free their African slaves. Although the British government gave them generous financial compensation, the Boers regarded this further interference by the British as too much to accept. In 1835 they began the ‘Great Trek’ northward to found the Orange Free State and the South African Republic. By 1856 the British had recognized the independence of these states but had themselves founded a new colony in Natal. After heavy fighting, beginning in 1879, the British conquered the African military state of Zululand and added it to Natal in 1897.
The discovery of diamonds and gold in southern Africa led to disputes between the Boers and the British. Britain annexed the South African Republic, but the Boers struck back. They won the first of the South African Wars, or Boer Wars, (1880–81), and regained the lost territory, which the Boers renamed the Transvaal Republic.
Britain had maintained a few forts in West Africa, where gold and ivory kept their importance after the slave trade ended. An exception was Sierra Leone, where Granville Sharp, an Englishman opposed to slavery, established a settlement of freed American slaves in 1787. This coastal strip of Sierra Leone was made a British colony in 1808. In 1821 the British established a coastal colony around the tiny town of Bathurst on the River Gambia. Only later were colonies established on the coasts of present-day Ghana and Nigeria. Basutoland (now Lesotho) became a British protectorate in 1868, at the request of Moshoeshoe I (1790–1870), paramount chief of the Sothi nation.
From the 1880s onward Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain vied with each other to establish colonies in Africa. British protectorates were established to cover roughly the area of present-day Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria. Because of the climate, which gave West Africa its reputation as ‘the white man's grave’, these colonies attracted very few British settlers.
In East Africa the situation was different, for on high ground the land proved suitable for settlement by white colonists. Private companies under charter from the British government established control over Kenya in 1888 and Uganda in 1890. Uganda became a British protectorate in 1894, and Kenya became the East African Protectorate in 1895. In 1890 Germany, which had already relinquished its interests in Uganda, ceded Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania) to Britain in exchange for Heligoland, an island off the German coast. By 1900 all Kenya and Uganda was under the control of the British government. Northern Somalia had come under direct control of the British in 1884. By the time the European scramble for Africa ended, Britain held the second-largest share of the continent.
British missionaries of all denominations spread the Christian religion throughout the empire. They made proportionately little impression in places where the religions of Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam dominated, but even in those areas their converts numbered several millions. Their success was greater in the West Indies and in Africa south of the Sahara.
David Livingstone, a Scottish missionary, explored much of the area that is now Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Like several other intrepid explorers, who included Richard Burton, John Hanning Speke, and Samuel Baker, Livingstone explored the River Nile. His journeys also took him to the Zambezi River and to lakes Tanganyika and Nyasa. Following Livingstone's journeys, the Free Church of Scotland set up a mission in Nyasaland (now Malawi) in 1875, and the country became a British protectorate in 1891. Bechuanaland (now Botswana) became a British protectorate in 1885.
In the late 1880s the British South Africa Company, which was largely controlled by Cecil Rhodes, negotiated land mineral rights from African chiefs in Matabeleland and Mashonaland. By 1889 the company had conquered these two territories and united them as Rhodesia, named after Rhodes. The company intervened further northwards, stamping out the slave trade and bringing that area under their control too. They named it Northern Rhodesia (which later became Zambia).
In 1890 Rhodes became prime minister of Cape Colony, at a time when tension was again mounting between the Boers and the British. The Boers resisted encroachments in their territories by British speculators interested in the diamonds and gold known to exist there. After three years of the second of the South African Wars, or Boer Wars (1899–1902), the two Boer republics, plus Swaziland, were annexed by Britain.
Dominions and independence
Britain took care not to lose any more colonies through wars of independence. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were a special case; their great distance from Britain made it desirable that they should have a great measure of control over their own affairs. The concept of self-government was first formulated in the ‘Report on the Affairs of British North America’ in 1839 by Lord John Durham, Canada's governor-general. This report recommended that ‘responsible government’ (the acceptance by governors of the advice of local ministers) should be granted to Upper Canada (Ontario) and Lower Canada (Québec), which should be merged into one. The merge took place immediately, but responsible government did not come into being until 1847 under the governorship of Lord Elgin, the son-in-law of Lord Durham.
This pattern was subsequently applied to the other Canadian provinces and to the Australian colonies. The Australian colonies had attained responsible government by 1859, except for Western Australia, which attained it in 1890. New Zealand obtained responsible government in all but native affairs in 1856, and this exception disappeared by 1870. Cape Colony achieved responsible government in 1872, followed by Natal in 1893.
The British devised a further intermediate stage between colonial status and independence, which came to be called dominion status. Canada became a dominion in 1867, Australia in 1901, New Zealand in 1907, and the Union of South Africa (Cape Colony, Natal, Orange Free State, and Transvaal) by 1910. These constitutional changes were effected with assent from the dominion states. Eire (southern Ireland), which had been part of the UK, also became a dominion as the Irish Free State in 1922, but it did not acknowledge this status and declared itself independent in 1938. Eire's breakaway was accomplished only with much violence and bitterness.
To improve communications with India, Disraeli purchased for Britain shares in the Suez Canal in 1875. This led to British involvement in Egypt, a country supposedly under Turkish suzerainty, but in fact largely independent. In 1882 Egypt came under British occupation, and shortly after this British and Egyptian troops were jointly involved in Sudan, to the south. By 1899, a protectorate had been established, setting up a condominium (joint sovereignty) called Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. The great dream of Rhodes had been that one day the British Empire in Africa would stretch from the Cape to Cairo. By 1899 this dream was almost a reality; only German East Africa (Tanganyika) stood in the way. The defeat of Germany and Turkey in World War I not only gave Britain a mandate over Tanganyika, but also over Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, and part of Cameroon. German Southwest Africa (now Namibia) went to South Africa, German New Guinea to Australia, German Samoa to New Zealand, and the Pacific island of Nauru to Britain, Australia, and New Zealand jointly.
20th century
Loyalty was strong throughout most of the British Empire in World War I, but by the 1920s the Empire had reached its zenith. As well as the places already mentioned, it included part of Antarctica and many small territories, mainly Pacific islands. Its continuance depended upon British superiority at sea, upon the ability of Britain to maintain its industrial and financial supremacy, and also upon the psychological acceptance of British (and Western) superiority. However, all three factors were waning. In the 1920s there had been stirrings in India, where Mahatma Gandhi led unarmed protests, called ‘civil disobedience’, to British rule. By 1939 the end of all empires was near, and World War II speeded their end. After the war ended the rest of the empire began to break up. India was the first to acquire independence, dividing as it did so into two countries, India and Pakistan. The rest of the colonies then became independent, most of them before 1980. With the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997 Britain was left with only 13 small dependencies.
British Empire
The colonies of the British Empire sent more than 2.5 million men to fight for Britain's cause during World War I. India was the largest single provider, contributing nearly 1.3 million men. It is estimated that Canada sent some 418,000 men overseas, Australia contributed 322,000, South Africa more than 146,000, New Zealand some 124,000, and Rhodesia over 6,800. Large numbers were also provided by the West Indies and other parts of Africa and Asia. Colonial troops were deployed on most of the major battlefronts: the Western Front in France, South West Africa (now Namibia), Egypt, Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), Palestine, Egypt, and Gallipoli in Turkey. They also served in the Royal Navy and the Royal Flying Corps. Figures vary, but by the end of the war, while Britain had lost an estimated 702,500 men, the colonial armies combined had lost over 206,000.
Strength of support
Soon after Britain entered World War I in August 1914, men from British colonies all over the world rushed to volunteer. Although the war was being fought many thousands of kilometres away, Britain's colonies did not feel any less involved. Britain, the colonial mother country, needed their help, and the strong spirit of loyalty within the British Empire made Germany the enemy of all the Empire's subjects. This feeling of togetherness was particularly strong in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, where an estimated 10% of adult males volunteered, and Rhodesia, where it is suggested that about 50% of all adult white males went to war. Support was also prevalent among many, but not all, of the people of India and among English-speaking South Africans. The Indian Army was drawn from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Burma, but many anti-British radicals in India took the opportunity to organize against the Empire in India during the war. In South Africa the Boer population opposed any attack on South West Africa, which was under German control. The Boers were of Dutch descent and had been given military and financial aid by the German government during the Boer War (1899–1902) against Britain.
The British Policy of Divide and Rule in Burma, Malaya and India
The British Policy of Divide and Rule in Burma, Malaya and India
Posted on January 28, 2010 by sanooaung
The British Policy of Divide and Rule in Burma, Malaya and India
II. British Burma:
In British Burma, the same policy was introduced with the help of ‘pseudo-anthropological’ tools such as the colonial census and population reports. After three successive wars against the Burmese kingdom in 1824-26, 1852-53 and 1884-85, the British attempted to break the Burman hold on Burmese politics and society by deliberately employing the ethnic minorities and hill tribes in specific sectors of the plural colonial economy. Groups like the Karens were singled out for missionary conversion and recruitment into the colonial police force (such as the Karen Rifles brigade), thereby immediately setting the different ethnic groupings against each other.
Other migrant races were brought in to man the colonial economy as well as the colonial police force. Sikh troops from India were used to curtail indigenous revolts, as in the case of British Malaya. As in the case of Malaya, the British also introduced a policy of ‘protecting’ the rights of the indigenous Burmans when it became obvious that they had been marginalised in the colonial economy that was set up. This involved the employment of Burmans into the civil service apparatus, but it effectively kept them out of other areas such as the economy.
The result was a deepening of ethnic and racial differences and the creation of even more resentment between the communities, which the British used to their advantage. As a consequence of this, Burma experienced a series of ethnic conflicts which intensified during the process of nationalist struggle. The postcolonial regime has also tried to deal with the enduring problem of racial and ethnic animosity for several decades, but most of their policies have failed due to their own Burman-centric approach.
In conclusion, it could be said that the British policy of divide and rule in Malaya was not unique. It was a standard policy that Britain was employing in all of its colonies in Asia as well as Africa, and its motivation was primarily based on realpolitik considerations that placed the economic and political needs of the colonial government before all else.
The British Policy of Divide and Rule: Some comparisons with British India and Burma.
The British policy of ‘divide and rule’ was not exclusive to Malaya alone, nor was it a practice carried out by Britain exclusively. It was a general policy adopted by most Western imperial powers which achieved its most rationalised and systematic form by the middle of the nineteenth century and it was carried out in most of their colonies in Asia and Africa until the middle of the twentieth century. ‘Divide and rule’ was generally responsible for sowing the seeds of racial, religious and ethnic discord and mistrust which led to many instances of inter-racial and inter-religious conflict. This in turn helped justify the presence of the colonial powers in the colonies as a foreign policing agent which kept the unstable situation in check by keeping the different groupings forcibly apart. Most of these colonies remain fragmented thanks to these policies which were not reversed or corrected during the hasty process of decolonisation in the 1940’s-60’s.
In British Malaya, a fragmented plural economy was created through the massive importation of large numbers of non-Malay Asian migrants, mostly from India and China. Sikh and Punjabi troops from Northern India were used to police the community and to keep the groups in check. They were also used to stem any attempts at revolt by the Malays. These groups were legally and forcibly confined to specific sectors of the economy, while the Malays themselves were gradually squeezed out of the economic mainstream of the colony. The policy of promoting Malays to allocated spaces within the colonial bureaucracy as part of the policy of ‘protecting’ Malay special privileges and rights further entrenched these differences and reinforced the boundaries of economic and political differences which coincided with artificially created ethnic boundaries.
The policies in Malaya can be compared to those employed in two other British Asian colonies: British India and British Burma.
I. British India:
‘Divide and Rule’ was the standard policy employed by the British in their dealings with India and the Indians from the very beginning, when the East India Company (EIC) first made its presence felt in the subcontinent.
From its earliest victory at the Battle of Pelasi (Plassey) in 1757, the EIC was already actively engaged in turning the Indian rulers against each other. At Pelasi, the small force of Robert Clive only managed to defeat the larger force of Siraj-ud-Dawla, the Nawab of Bengal, because he had managed to conspire with the Nawab’s uncle Mir Jafar and persuaded the latter to betray his nephew. After gaining control of Bengal and other parts of India, the EIC began to introduce reforms in law and taxation law which allowed it to earn more profit which also creating dependent class groupings within Indian society.
In 1793 the Zemindari system was introduced by the British in the region of Bengal. The law transferred the ownership of the land from the village communities to the Zemindars, the class of tax-collectors, who were responsible to the EIC directly. These Zemindars became a new class grouping within themselves and this division led to further alienation and antagonism in Indian rural societies. The Zemindars in turn became a new breed of land-owners under EIC protection and served the role of tax-farmers who provided the EIC with guaranteed revenue through their own unscrupulous and often brutal means of tax-extortion.
Then in 1818 the EIC introduced the Ryotwari system in the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. This made the Indian peasants (the ryots) tenants on land that was previously theirs anyway. The ryot were forced to pay tent-taxes to the EIC and if they failed to do so they were forced off their property. The Ryotwari system created a class of itinerant peasants and a new class of rural homeless poor. They were often victimised by EIC forces and officials, as well as local Indian money-lenders and profiteers who eventually took over all their lands.
The strategy of divide and rule was further entrenched and institutionalised in the wake of the First Indian War of Independence in 1857. Even during the conflict itself the British were engaged in pursuing the policy in their dealings with the Indians. The British authorities won the support of the Indian feudal rulers, Princes and Talukdars by promising that their lands would be returned to them if they supported the British effort. This isolated the mass peasant base that supported the war of independence, and allowed the British to defeat them in stages. After the defeat of the Indian forces, the British effectively decapitated the political leadership of the country. The last moghul ruler of India, Emperor Bahadar Shah Zafar, was deposed by the British in 1856, but he was proclaimed emperor once again in 1857 by the Indians. After the defeat of the Indians in 1858, Bahadur Shah was once again deposed by the British, this time for good. He was sent into exile in Rangoon after his entire family was executed and their heads were presented to the emperor by the British soldiers, served on silver platters.
The British colonial government then took over the rule of India from the East India Company, and it began to introduce a number of policies which were designed to further entrench the pre-existing social divisions within the country: It worked to keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the colony, and it introduced a system of deliberate racial discrimination which favoured Muslims over Hindus in some areas and the opposite in others. This was part of a deliberate and orchestrated plan to maintain British rule in the colony. Government officials realised that the pre-existing racial and religious differences between Hindus and Muslims could be turned to their advantage if the two groups were made to oppose each other, instead of working together to oppose British rule. As Sir John Strachey put it: ‘The truth plainly is that the existence side by side of these hostile creeds is one of the strong points of our political position in India’ (1888). This climate of hostility was itself artificially created and intensified by the divisive policies outlined above. As Lieutenant Colonel Coke has explained it: ‘our endeavour should be to uphold in full force the separation which exists between different religions and races, not mix them. Divide et Impera should be our principle aim’ (1860).
The British government also sought to employ the different racial groups in different sectors of the colonial economy and administration, thus emphasising ethnic and cultural divisions even more. In particular those ethnic groups that were regarded as being ‘martial races’ (i.e. Rajputs, Sikhs,) were used to man the military and security apparatus of the colonial state both in India as well as in the other neighbouring colonies.
Minor principalities and small Indian kingdoms were also given limited autonomy and governed indirectly. By allowing some petty Indian rulers to enjoy some of the trappings of power, the British government hoped to ensure that a minor Indian elite and aristocracy could be maintained that was well-disposed towards their colonial rulers. As in the case of the Malay sultanates, the Indian courts were appointed British residents and advisors, who in fact assumed de facto powers to rule while the native rulers were reduced to puppets of the colonial regime.
These policies were perpetuated and intensified well into the twentieth century. It culminated with the fragmentation of the Indian nationalist movement along class, ethnic, ideological and religious lines and the emergence of the Muslim League of India in 1906. By this time, Indian Muslims were certain that their presence would no longer be welcomed in an independent predominantly-Hindu India. The British, however, did not relent in their aim to keep the two communities at odds with each other, for it feared the prospect of an emerging Indian nationalism that might lead to the overthrow of British rule in India. The net result of nearly a century of racial division and social engineering was the eventual partition of India in 1946-47, and the racial and religious conflict that preceded and followed in the wake of India-Pakistan’s independence.
References:
Sir John Strachey, ‘India’, (London. 1888) in R.P Dutt, ‘India Today’, Manisha, India. 1986. (pg. 456)
D.G.E. Hall, ‘A History of Southeast Asia’, Macmillan Asian Histories Series, Fourth Edition. London. 1981.
Robert H. Taylor, ‘The State in Burma’ . 1988.
http://sanooaung.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/the-british-policy-of-divide-and-rule-in-burma-malaya-
Posted on January 28, 2010 by sanooaung
The British Policy of Divide and Rule in Burma, Malaya and India
II. British Burma:
In British Burma, the same policy was introduced with the help of ‘pseudo-anthropological’ tools such as the colonial census and population reports. After three successive wars against the Burmese kingdom in 1824-26, 1852-53 and 1884-85, the British attempted to break the Burman hold on Burmese politics and society by deliberately employing the ethnic minorities and hill tribes in specific sectors of the plural colonial economy. Groups like the Karens were singled out for missionary conversion and recruitment into the colonial police force (such as the Karen Rifles brigade), thereby immediately setting the different ethnic groupings against each other.
Other migrant races were brought in to man the colonial economy as well as the colonial police force. Sikh troops from India were used to curtail indigenous revolts, as in the case of British Malaya. As in the case of Malaya, the British also introduced a policy of ‘protecting’ the rights of the indigenous Burmans when it became obvious that they had been marginalised in the colonial economy that was set up. This involved the employment of Burmans into the civil service apparatus, but it effectively kept them out of other areas such as the economy.
The result was a deepening of ethnic and racial differences and the creation of even more resentment between the communities, which the British used to their advantage. As a consequence of this, Burma experienced a series of ethnic conflicts which intensified during the process of nationalist struggle. The postcolonial regime has also tried to deal with the enduring problem of racial and ethnic animosity for several decades, but most of their policies have failed due to their own Burman-centric approach.
In conclusion, it could be said that the British policy of divide and rule in Malaya was not unique. It was a standard policy that Britain was employing in all of its colonies in Asia as well as Africa, and its motivation was primarily based on realpolitik considerations that placed the economic and political needs of the colonial government before all else.
The British Policy of Divide and Rule: Some comparisons with British India and Burma.
The British policy of ‘divide and rule’ was not exclusive to Malaya alone, nor was it a practice carried out by Britain exclusively. It was a general policy adopted by most Western imperial powers which achieved its most rationalised and systematic form by the middle of the nineteenth century and it was carried out in most of their colonies in Asia and Africa until the middle of the twentieth century. ‘Divide and rule’ was generally responsible for sowing the seeds of racial, religious and ethnic discord and mistrust which led to many instances of inter-racial and inter-religious conflict. This in turn helped justify the presence of the colonial powers in the colonies as a foreign policing agent which kept the unstable situation in check by keeping the different groupings forcibly apart. Most of these colonies remain fragmented thanks to these policies which were not reversed or corrected during the hasty process of decolonisation in the 1940’s-60’s.
In British Malaya, a fragmented plural economy was created through the massive importation of large numbers of non-Malay Asian migrants, mostly from India and China. Sikh and Punjabi troops from Northern India were used to police the community and to keep the groups in check. They were also used to stem any attempts at revolt by the Malays. These groups were legally and forcibly confined to specific sectors of the economy, while the Malays themselves were gradually squeezed out of the economic mainstream of the colony. The policy of promoting Malays to allocated spaces within the colonial bureaucracy as part of the policy of ‘protecting’ Malay special privileges and rights further entrenched these differences and reinforced the boundaries of economic and political differences which coincided with artificially created ethnic boundaries.
The policies in Malaya can be compared to those employed in two other British Asian colonies: British India and British Burma.
I. British India:
‘Divide and Rule’ was the standard policy employed by the British in their dealings with India and the Indians from the very beginning, when the East India Company (EIC) first made its presence felt in the subcontinent.
From its earliest victory at the Battle of Pelasi (Plassey) in 1757, the EIC was already actively engaged in turning the Indian rulers against each other. At Pelasi, the small force of Robert Clive only managed to defeat the larger force of Siraj-ud-Dawla, the Nawab of Bengal, because he had managed to conspire with the Nawab’s uncle Mir Jafar and persuaded the latter to betray his nephew. After gaining control of Bengal and other parts of India, the EIC began to introduce reforms in law and taxation law which allowed it to earn more profit which also creating dependent class groupings within Indian society.
In 1793 the Zemindari system was introduced by the British in the region of Bengal. The law transferred the ownership of the land from the village communities to the Zemindars, the class of tax-collectors, who were responsible to the EIC directly. These Zemindars became a new class grouping within themselves and this division led to further alienation and antagonism in Indian rural societies. The Zemindars in turn became a new breed of land-owners under EIC protection and served the role of tax-farmers who provided the EIC with guaranteed revenue through their own unscrupulous and often brutal means of tax-extortion.
Then in 1818 the EIC introduced the Ryotwari system in the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. This made the Indian peasants (the ryots) tenants on land that was previously theirs anyway. The ryot were forced to pay tent-taxes to the EIC and if they failed to do so they were forced off their property. The Ryotwari system created a class of itinerant peasants and a new class of rural homeless poor. They were often victimised by EIC forces and officials, as well as local Indian money-lenders and profiteers who eventually took over all their lands.
The strategy of divide and rule was further entrenched and institutionalised in the wake of the First Indian War of Independence in 1857. Even during the conflict itself the British were engaged in pursuing the policy in their dealings with the Indians. The British authorities won the support of the Indian feudal rulers, Princes and Talukdars by promising that their lands would be returned to them if they supported the British effort. This isolated the mass peasant base that supported the war of independence, and allowed the British to defeat them in stages. After the defeat of the Indian forces, the British effectively decapitated the political leadership of the country. The last moghul ruler of India, Emperor Bahadar Shah Zafar, was deposed by the British in 1856, but he was proclaimed emperor once again in 1857 by the Indians. After the defeat of the Indians in 1858, Bahadur Shah was once again deposed by the British, this time for good. He was sent into exile in Rangoon after his entire family was executed and their heads were presented to the emperor by the British soldiers, served on silver platters.
The British colonial government then took over the rule of India from the East India Company, and it began to introduce a number of policies which were designed to further entrench the pre-existing social divisions within the country: It worked to keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the colony, and it introduced a system of deliberate racial discrimination which favoured Muslims over Hindus in some areas and the opposite in others. This was part of a deliberate and orchestrated plan to maintain British rule in the colony. Government officials realised that the pre-existing racial and religious differences between Hindus and Muslims could be turned to their advantage if the two groups were made to oppose each other, instead of working together to oppose British rule. As Sir John Strachey put it: ‘The truth plainly is that the existence side by side of these hostile creeds is one of the strong points of our political position in India’ (1888). This climate of hostility was itself artificially created and intensified by the divisive policies outlined above. As Lieutenant Colonel Coke has explained it: ‘our endeavour should be to uphold in full force the separation which exists between different religions and races, not mix them. Divide et Impera should be our principle aim’ (1860).
The British government also sought to employ the different racial groups in different sectors of the colonial economy and administration, thus emphasising ethnic and cultural divisions even more. In particular those ethnic groups that were regarded as being ‘martial races’ (i.e. Rajputs, Sikhs,) were used to man the military and security apparatus of the colonial state both in India as well as in the other neighbouring colonies.
Minor principalities and small Indian kingdoms were also given limited autonomy and governed indirectly. By allowing some petty Indian rulers to enjoy some of the trappings of power, the British government hoped to ensure that a minor Indian elite and aristocracy could be maintained that was well-disposed towards their colonial rulers. As in the case of the Malay sultanates, the Indian courts were appointed British residents and advisors, who in fact assumed de facto powers to rule while the native rulers were reduced to puppets of the colonial regime.
These policies were perpetuated and intensified well into the twentieth century. It culminated with the fragmentation of the Indian nationalist movement along class, ethnic, ideological and religious lines and the emergence of the Muslim League of India in 1906. By this time, Indian Muslims were certain that their presence would no longer be welcomed in an independent predominantly-Hindu India. The British, however, did not relent in their aim to keep the two communities at odds with each other, for it feared the prospect of an emerging Indian nationalism that might lead to the overthrow of British rule in India. The net result of nearly a century of racial division and social engineering was the eventual partition of India in 1946-47, and the racial and religious conflict that preceded and followed in the wake of India-Pakistan’s independence.
References:
Sir John Strachey, ‘India’, (London. 1888) in R.P Dutt, ‘India Today’, Manisha, India. 1986. (pg. 456)
D.G.E. Hall, ‘A History of Southeast Asia’, Macmillan Asian Histories Series, Fourth Edition. London. 1981.
Robert H. Taylor, ‘The State in Burma’ . 1988.
http://sanooaung.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/the-british-policy-of-divide-and-rule-in-burma-malaya-
british colonial bias
Colonial rule (2): British bias paved the path for racial antagonism
Written by Cheah Boon Kheng
Thursday, 11 February 2010 13:27
History
The greatest threat to Britain’s continued presence in Malaya was the rising Malay nationalism during the several decades prior to Merdeka. To neutralize this threat, the British rulers chose to appease Malays with pro-Malay policies that protected the community while at the same time discriminating against Chinese and Indians – a strategy known as ‘divide and rule’.
The British colonial rulers prioritized the maintenance of white prestige and profits but they also sought to accommodate Malay interests in various ways due to their treaty obligations with the sultans.
As for the Chinese and Indian labour force, the British left them to fend for themselves during the severe economic depression. The Colonial Office and owners of capital felt no responsibility towards the welfare of these workers even when they were on the verge of starvation after having lost their jobs.
Instead of relief measures, restrictions were imposed by the British on non-Malay socio-economic mobility and advancement. Among the measures were exclusion from the administrative service and discouragement of agricultural and land settlement. These steps taken by the British rulers displayed “distinct racial overtones because they discriminated against the Chinese and Indians as races???.
Nor did British assistance to Malays go far enough in bringing them into the fold of the modern economy, or involvement in commerce and business.
Bottomline: The social, economic and political interests of the various communities in Malaya were never balanced equitably … Britannia-ruling-the-waves did not see the need to be even-handed. – cpiasia.net
Below is Part 2 of the paper ‘Race and ethnic relations in colonial Malaya during the 1920s and 1930s’ earlier published in the book Multiethnic Malaysia – Past, Present and Future, and reproduced here by permission of the author.
***************************************
The decentralization policy: A ‘pro-Malay’ policy
by Cheah Boon Kheng
The Chinese were further alarmed when alongside this legislation – the Federal Council a Small Holders (Restriction of Sale) Bill in 1931 that prohibited the sale of land in any smallholding without the consent of the ruler – Governor Sir Cecil Clementi announced in the same year a programme of reforms towards the formation of a Malayan union and the decentralization of the Federated Malay States (FMS), which comprised the states of Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Perak and Pahang.
The idea behind these reforms was to loosen the “overcentralization??? of authority in the FMS, which was largely in the hands of British officials, so that the FMS states could be put on a similar constitutional basis as the “unfederated??? Malay states of Johor, Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Trengganu, which enjoyed greater autonomy in administration than the FMS states.
The reforms would involve the transfer of powers and responsibilities such as posts, telegraphs, customs, lands, surveys, agriculture, and education, which were in federal hands, mainly in the hands of the federation’s Chief Secretary, to each of the respective FMS states. This would in turn mean eventually the abolition of the post of the Chief Secretary itself. The reforms, which were announced by Clementi at the durbar of the four FMS Malay rulers in Sri Menanti (Negri Sembilan) on 18th August 1931 were warmly welcomed and endorsed by the Malay rulers themselves.
The debates that ensued highlighted the strong “pro-Malay??? and “anti-Chinese??? features of the reforms.
They aroused “a resentment the unanimity, bitterness, and intensity of which are unparalleled in Malayan history,??? wrote Emerson.1
Opposition to the reforms now came not only from Chinese community leaders but also from the British/European business groups, while British Residents and other officials argued that the reforms were necessary otherwise “the Chinese would cut off the Malays from even the small share in their country which remained to them???. 2
The European unofficial members of the Legislative Council who argued against the reforms stated that the FMS states should not be returned to Malay rule as Malays “were not fitted to receive them, not much interested in getting them, and not able to hold them when they had them???. 3 They wanted the centralized and elaborate European administration to continue; otherwise they feared the reforms would undermine large-scale Western enterprise.
According to Roff, the Chinese representatives in the Federal and Straits Settlements legislatures “attacked the decentralization and pro-Malay policies, pressed for the inclusion of non-Malays in the Malayan Civil Service, and urged more rapid political development in a unified Malaya.???
One of the Legislative Council members, Lim Cheng Yan, of Penang, spoke in terms “scarcely calculated to soothe Malay breasts??? by declaring, “Who said this is a Malay country???? 4 The Malay press, while they did not challenge the right of local-born Chinese in the Straits Settlements to become British subjects, strongly opposed the granting of citizenship or other political rights in the peninsular states.
Padi cultivation policy: Further racial polarisation
Two other issues relating to the padi cultivation policy indicated further the political and racial considerations of the British policymakers. Besides creating the problem of unemployment, the depression brought about a severe shortage of food. Food production, especially the supply of rice, was needed to feed the local population, especially the labour force in the mines and estates. Although the administration in 1932 made a concession by issuing more than 50,000 temporary occupation licences for use of lands in the states to Chinese market gardeners to relieve their unemployment, it refused to go further by alienating land for Chinese and Indians to cultivate padi.5 Although the Chinese had earlier shied away from padi cultivation owing to the poor economic returns, the colonial government itself had been reluctant to allow the Chinese to cultivate padi, as they feared the Chinese would intrude into what was seen as a Malay preserve and arouse Malay resentment against the British.
The issue was debated n the Rice Cultivation Committee but the committee decided that “in any policy for the extension of rice cultivation due and full regard should be paid to the requirements, immediate and future of the Malay inhabitants of the Malay States whose interests should be adequately safeguarded by the decisions of the State Council in each state???.6
The Malay leaders had also put pressure on the British not to alienate land to the Chinese for padi cultivation. The Raja Muda of Selangor in a speech in the Selangor State Council said, the Malays were “a padi cultural people who could not do well in business or commerce and that the Malay people, unlike the Chinese, had nowhere else to go.???7
The second issue related to the imposition of duty on imported rice, which was approved by Governor Clementi, an idea that originated from the Sultan of Pahang and was supported by the other Malay rulers. The duty was to be used for financing padi development schemes and it was a means to boost local padi cultivation by making the price of local padi more competitive with imported rice. Even some British Residents and unofficial members of the Federal Council, Chinese and Europeans, spoke against this policy and argued that that the duty would not affect the consumers of local rice and non-rice foodstuffs but only the Chinese and Indian rice consumers. They stressed that it would cause hardship for the non-Malay masses whose standards of living were affected by the economic depression and who were already spending one-third of their income on the purchase of rice.
“What appeared to emphasize the racial overtones implied in the imposition of the duty,??? reveals a detailed study of this controversy, “was that the money ‘levied from one section of the community’ was ‘to be expended in assisting another’.8 Despite the strong opposition, Governor Clementi pushed through the policy as he decided not only to accommodate Malay interests, but he was also short of funds to pursue an extensive programme to help Malay padi cultivators.
Conclusion
The depression years marked a bleak period in the country’s economic history and highlighted the hardships that the various communities had to endure, but by 1935 the economic slump had lifted and ethnic tensions gradually diminished. The tensions did not lead to any outbreak of inter-ethnic violence and bloodshed, but they revealed fully how British policies came into play for each of the respective communities.
The British adopted a laissez-faire attitude towards non-Malays as they felt that they had no responsibilities towards their welfare. This very materialistic view was based on the assumption that immigrant labour chose to come into the country of their own free will and should be prepared to look after themselves when economic disaster struck. No unemployment relief or measures were introduced to accommodate the unemployed or displaced immigration workers except to provide them with free repatriation. Some 50,000 Chinese market gardeners were allowed lands with temporary occupation licences to plant food, but for a limited period only. Even in the case of the domiciled Chinese and others who were British subjects, the British attitude was one of indifference.
On the other hand, their ‘pro-Malay’ policies, such as decentralization, Malay lands reservations and padi cultivation, reflected the limited trusteeship roles the British were prepared to discharge towards the Malays. These worked against the best interests of the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, who were now able to see a policy of favoritisms, and the arguments the British used to defend the ‘pro-Malay policies??? clearly showed bias and discrimination, causing resentment and hostility to build up.
The demands of a rising Malay nationalism were evident as not only Malay rulers, but also the Malay press and voluntary associations began pressing the British administration to do more to improve the Malays’ welfare and economic position and to grant them greater participation in administration and government.
The Chinese position was particularly acute, as repressive measures had been taken against Chinese communist and nationalist elements, followed by a tightening up of British control, censorship and supervision, resulting in several thousands being banished back to china. These raised the anxieties of domiciled Chinese who wished to escape from this fate.
They and those who were British subjects continued to be alarmed by the implications of the decentralization programme and continued British attacks on Chinese political and economic ambitions from which the British claimed the Malays needed protection. Domiciled Chinese saw the decentralization programme as a further discrimination towards non-Malays especially their exclusion from the administrative services.
In his major study of the colonial economy, Lim argues that the British administration’s economic ‘pro-Malay’ policies – especially on land reservations, padi cultivation and protection of Malay rubber smallholders – did not go far enough to assist the Malays.9 The British attempted to shield the Malays from the dynamic sectors of the modern economy, and did not involve them in commercial and industrial projects or provide them with sufficient capital, loans and assistance, even in the field of rural agriculture.
They segregated the Malays from other communities instead of encouraging their fuller integration into a modern society. Lim concludes, “Furthermore, the colonial government, by its cynical use of Chinese interests to divert attention from its own shortcomings and as a scapegoat to explain the economic impoverishment of the Malays, was guilty of contributing to racial polarization and discord.???10
In a similar vein, Abraham’s The Roots of Race Relations in Malaya views the ‘pro-Malay’ policies of the 1930s as having “distinct racial overtones because they discriminated against the Chinese and Indians as races??? and led to group formations along lines of racial identity and racial consciousness between groups. 11
As a contemporary observer, Rupert Emerson was one of the strongest critics of British policies during the economic depression, viewing them as excellent opportunities for the application of the maxim of “divide and rule???.12 He argued that such policies were bound to come into play so long as the British administrators were not prepared to adopt policies of racial integration and political programmes for the subject peoples to move towards self-government.
Given the structure of colonial society being divided between two groups of masters and subject peoples, the exploitative nature of colonial rule, its denial of freedom, and its maintenance of white prestige and profits, it is not surprising that the British administration in Malaya had adopted such lopsided policies during the economic depression which resulted in racial polarisation.
In view of its treaty obligations, which formed the basis of its rule in Malaya, it could not ignore the demands of a rising Malay nationalism, as it feared that Malay opposition would increase further; and consequently, it attempted in a limited way to accommodate some of their demands.
It saw no necessity to balance the social, economic and political interests of the various communities equitably in the interests of all, but instead attempted to pander and appease Malay nationalism, which it considered as the ultimate threat to its continued presence in Malaya. The colonial structure of its government militated against it adopting racial integration and allowing the other races equal rights to participate in administration and government. For them to do otherwise, as Emerson rightly pointed out, would have meant that colonial administrators were working “toward their speedy supercession???.13
Part 1 on the British’s anti-Chinese policies appeared yesterday.
Dr Cheah Boon Kheng is visiting professor at the National University of Singapore. He was previously history professor at USM, and has been visiting professor at the Australian National University and ISEAS. He is also author of several books.
References
ABRAHAM, COLLIN. THE ROOTS OF RACE RELATIONS IN MALAYA. INSAN, KUALA LUMPUR, 1997.
BUTCHER, JOHN. THE BRITISH IN MALAYA, 1880-1941. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, KUALA LUMPUR, 1979.
EMERSON, RUPERT. MALAYSIA, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA PRESS, KUALA LUMPUR, (REPRINT), 1970.
FURNIVALL, J.S. NETHERLANDS INDIA: A STUDY OF PLURAL ECONOMY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, 1939.
FURNIVALL, COLONIAL POLICY AND PRACTICE. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, 1948.
LIM TECK GHEE. PEASANTS AND THEIR AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IN COLONIAL MALAYA., 1874-
1941. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, SINGAPORE, 1977.
MARGER, MARTIN N., RACE AND ETHNIC RELATIONS: AMERICAN AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.
THOMSON-WADSWORTH, BELMONT, CA, 2003.
PURCELL, VICTOR. THE CHINESE IN MALAYA. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, KUALA LUMPUR,
(REPRINT), 1975.
ROFF, W.R., THE ORIGINS OF MALAY NATIONALISM. UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA PRESS, KUALA
LUMPUR, 1967.
SMITH, ANTHONY. THE ETHNIC REVIVAL. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, 1981.
STAVENHAGEN, RODOLPHO. THE ETHNIC QUESTION: CONFLICTS, DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN
RIGHTS. UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, TOKYO, 1990.
http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1861:colonial-rule-2-british-bias-paved-the-path-for-racial-antagonism-&catid=184:british-colony
Written by Cheah Boon Kheng
Thursday, 11 February 2010 13:27
History
The greatest threat to Britain’s continued presence in Malaya was the rising Malay nationalism during the several decades prior to Merdeka. To neutralize this threat, the British rulers chose to appease Malays with pro-Malay policies that protected the community while at the same time discriminating against Chinese and Indians – a strategy known as ‘divide and rule’.
The British colonial rulers prioritized the maintenance of white prestige and profits but they also sought to accommodate Malay interests in various ways due to their treaty obligations with the sultans.
As for the Chinese and Indian labour force, the British left them to fend for themselves during the severe economic depression. The Colonial Office and owners of capital felt no responsibility towards the welfare of these workers even when they were on the verge of starvation after having lost their jobs.
Instead of relief measures, restrictions were imposed by the British on non-Malay socio-economic mobility and advancement. Among the measures were exclusion from the administrative service and discouragement of agricultural and land settlement. These steps taken by the British rulers displayed “distinct racial overtones because they discriminated against the Chinese and Indians as races???.
Nor did British assistance to Malays go far enough in bringing them into the fold of the modern economy, or involvement in commerce and business.
Bottomline: The social, economic and political interests of the various communities in Malaya were never balanced equitably … Britannia-ruling-the-waves did not see the need to be even-handed. – cpiasia.net
Below is Part 2 of the paper ‘Race and ethnic relations in colonial Malaya during the 1920s and 1930s’ earlier published in the book Multiethnic Malaysia – Past, Present and Future, and reproduced here by permission of the author.
***************************************
The decentralization policy: A ‘pro-Malay’ policy
by Cheah Boon Kheng
The Chinese were further alarmed when alongside this legislation – the Federal Council a Small Holders (Restriction of Sale) Bill in 1931 that prohibited the sale of land in any smallholding without the consent of the ruler – Governor Sir Cecil Clementi announced in the same year a programme of reforms towards the formation of a Malayan union and the decentralization of the Federated Malay States (FMS), which comprised the states of Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Perak and Pahang.
The idea behind these reforms was to loosen the “overcentralization??? of authority in the FMS, which was largely in the hands of British officials, so that the FMS states could be put on a similar constitutional basis as the “unfederated??? Malay states of Johor, Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Trengganu, which enjoyed greater autonomy in administration than the FMS states.
The reforms would involve the transfer of powers and responsibilities such as posts, telegraphs, customs, lands, surveys, agriculture, and education, which were in federal hands, mainly in the hands of the federation’s Chief Secretary, to each of the respective FMS states. This would in turn mean eventually the abolition of the post of the Chief Secretary itself. The reforms, which were announced by Clementi at the durbar of the four FMS Malay rulers in Sri Menanti (Negri Sembilan) on 18th August 1931 were warmly welcomed and endorsed by the Malay rulers themselves.
The debates that ensued highlighted the strong “pro-Malay??? and “anti-Chinese??? features of the reforms.
They aroused “a resentment the unanimity, bitterness, and intensity of which are unparalleled in Malayan history,??? wrote Emerson.1
Opposition to the reforms now came not only from Chinese community leaders but also from the British/European business groups, while British Residents and other officials argued that the reforms were necessary otherwise “the Chinese would cut off the Malays from even the small share in their country which remained to them???. 2
The European unofficial members of the Legislative Council who argued against the reforms stated that the FMS states should not be returned to Malay rule as Malays “were not fitted to receive them, not much interested in getting them, and not able to hold them when they had them???. 3 They wanted the centralized and elaborate European administration to continue; otherwise they feared the reforms would undermine large-scale Western enterprise.
According to Roff, the Chinese representatives in the Federal and Straits Settlements legislatures “attacked the decentralization and pro-Malay policies, pressed for the inclusion of non-Malays in the Malayan Civil Service, and urged more rapid political development in a unified Malaya.???
One of the Legislative Council members, Lim Cheng Yan, of Penang, spoke in terms “scarcely calculated to soothe Malay breasts??? by declaring, “Who said this is a Malay country???? 4 The Malay press, while they did not challenge the right of local-born Chinese in the Straits Settlements to become British subjects, strongly opposed the granting of citizenship or other political rights in the peninsular states.
Padi cultivation policy: Further racial polarisation
Two other issues relating to the padi cultivation policy indicated further the political and racial considerations of the British policymakers. Besides creating the problem of unemployment, the depression brought about a severe shortage of food. Food production, especially the supply of rice, was needed to feed the local population, especially the labour force in the mines and estates. Although the administration in 1932 made a concession by issuing more than 50,000 temporary occupation licences for use of lands in the states to Chinese market gardeners to relieve their unemployment, it refused to go further by alienating land for Chinese and Indians to cultivate padi.5 Although the Chinese had earlier shied away from padi cultivation owing to the poor economic returns, the colonial government itself had been reluctant to allow the Chinese to cultivate padi, as they feared the Chinese would intrude into what was seen as a Malay preserve and arouse Malay resentment against the British.
The issue was debated n the Rice Cultivation Committee but the committee decided that “in any policy for the extension of rice cultivation due and full regard should be paid to the requirements, immediate and future of the Malay inhabitants of the Malay States whose interests should be adequately safeguarded by the decisions of the State Council in each state???.6
The Malay leaders had also put pressure on the British not to alienate land to the Chinese for padi cultivation. The Raja Muda of Selangor in a speech in the Selangor State Council said, the Malays were “a padi cultural people who could not do well in business or commerce and that the Malay people, unlike the Chinese, had nowhere else to go.???7
The second issue related to the imposition of duty on imported rice, which was approved by Governor Clementi, an idea that originated from the Sultan of Pahang and was supported by the other Malay rulers. The duty was to be used for financing padi development schemes and it was a means to boost local padi cultivation by making the price of local padi more competitive with imported rice. Even some British Residents and unofficial members of the Federal Council, Chinese and Europeans, spoke against this policy and argued that that the duty would not affect the consumers of local rice and non-rice foodstuffs but only the Chinese and Indian rice consumers. They stressed that it would cause hardship for the non-Malay masses whose standards of living were affected by the economic depression and who were already spending one-third of their income on the purchase of rice.
“What appeared to emphasize the racial overtones implied in the imposition of the duty,??? reveals a detailed study of this controversy, “was that the money ‘levied from one section of the community’ was ‘to be expended in assisting another’.8 Despite the strong opposition, Governor Clementi pushed through the policy as he decided not only to accommodate Malay interests, but he was also short of funds to pursue an extensive programme to help Malay padi cultivators.
Conclusion
The depression years marked a bleak period in the country’s economic history and highlighted the hardships that the various communities had to endure, but by 1935 the economic slump had lifted and ethnic tensions gradually diminished. The tensions did not lead to any outbreak of inter-ethnic violence and bloodshed, but they revealed fully how British policies came into play for each of the respective communities.
The British adopted a laissez-faire attitude towards non-Malays as they felt that they had no responsibilities towards their welfare. This very materialistic view was based on the assumption that immigrant labour chose to come into the country of their own free will and should be prepared to look after themselves when economic disaster struck. No unemployment relief or measures were introduced to accommodate the unemployed or displaced immigration workers except to provide them with free repatriation. Some 50,000 Chinese market gardeners were allowed lands with temporary occupation licences to plant food, but for a limited period only. Even in the case of the domiciled Chinese and others who were British subjects, the British attitude was one of indifference.
On the other hand, their ‘pro-Malay’ policies, such as decentralization, Malay lands reservations and padi cultivation, reflected the limited trusteeship roles the British were prepared to discharge towards the Malays. These worked against the best interests of the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, who were now able to see a policy of favoritisms, and the arguments the British used to defend the ‘pro-Malay policies??? clearly showed bias and discrimination, causing resentment and hostility to build up.
The demands of a rising Malay nationalism were evident as not only Malay rulers, but also the Malay press and voluntary associations began pressing the British administration to do more to improve the Malays’ welfare and economic position and to grant them greater participation in administration and government.
The Chinese position was particularly acute, as repressive measures had been taken against Chinese communist and nationalist elements, followed by a tightening up of British control, censorship and supervision, resulting in several thousands being banished back to china. These raised the anxieties of domiciled Chinese who wished to escape from this fate.
They and those who were British subjects continued to be alarmed by the implications of the decentralization programme and continued British attacks on Chinese political and economic ambitions from which the British claimed the Malays needed protection. Domiciled Chinese saw the decentralization programme as a further discrimination towards non-Malays especially their exclusion from the administrative services.
In his major study of the colonial economy, Lim argues that the British administration’s economic ‘pro-Malay’ policies – especially on land reservations, padi cultivation and protection of Malay rubber smallholders – did not go far enough to assist the Malays.9 The British attempted to shield the Malays from the dynamic sectors of the modern economy, and did not involve them in commercial and industrial projects or provide them with sufficient capital, loans and assistance, even in the field of rural agriculture.
They segregated the Malays from other communities instead of encouraging their fuller integration into a modern society. Lim concludes, “Furthermore, the colonial government, by its cynical use of Chinese interests to divert attention from its own shortcomings and as a scapegoat to explain the economic impoverishment of the Malays, was guilty of contributing to racial polarization and discord.???10
In a similar vein, Abraham’s The Roots of Race Relations in Malaya views the ‘pro-Malay’ policies of the 1930s as having “distinct racial overtones because they discriminated against the Chinese and Indians as races??? and led to group formations along lines of racial identity and racial consciousness between groups. 11
As a contemporary observer, Rupert Emerson was one of the strongest critics of British policies during the economic depression, viewing them as excellent opportunities for the application of the maxim of “divide and rule???.12 He argued that such policies were bound to come into play so long as the British administrators were not prepared to adopt policies of racial integration and political programmes for the subject peoples to move towards self-government.
Given the structure of colonial society being divided between two groups of masters and subject peoples, the exploitative nature of colonial rule, its denial of freedom, and its maintenance of white prestige and profits, it is not surprising that the British administration in Malaya had adopted such lopsided policies during the economic depression which resulted in racial polarisation.
In view of its treaty obligations, which formed the basis of its rule in Malaya, it could not ignore the demands of a rising Malay nationalism, as it feared that Malay opposition would increase further; and consequently, it attempted in a limited way to accommodate some of their demands.
It saw no necessity to balance the social, economic and political interests of the various communities equitably in the interests of all, but instead attempted to pander and appease Malay nationalism, which it considered as the ultimate threat to its continued presence in Malaya. The colonial structure of its government militated against it adopting racial integration and allowing the other races equal rights to participate in administration and government. For them to do otherwise, as Emerson rightly pointed out, would have meant that colonial administrators were working “toward their speedy supercession???.13
Part 1 on the British’s anti-Chinese policies appeared yesterday.
Dr Cheah Boon Kheng is visiting professor at the National University of Singapore. He was previously history professor at USM, and has been visiting professor at the Australian National University and ISEAS. He is also author of several books.
References
ABRAHAM, COLLIN. THE ROOTS OF RACE RELATIONS IN MALAYA. INSAN, KUALA LUMPUR, 1997.
BUTCHER, JOHN. THE BRITISH IN MALAYA, 1880-1941. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, KUALA LUMPUR, 1979.
EMERSON, RUPERT. MALAYSIA, UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA PRESS, KUALA LUMPUR, (REPRINT), 1970.
FURNIVALL, J.S. NETHERLANDS INDIA: A STUDY OF PLURAL ECONOMY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, 1939.
FURNIVALL, COLONIAL POLICY AND PRACTICE. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, 1948.
LIM TECK GHEE. PEASANTS AND THEIR AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY IN COLONIAL MALAYA., 1874-
1941. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, SINGAPORE, 1977.
MARGER, MARTIN N., RACE AND ETHNIC RELATIONS: AMERICAN AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.
THOMSON-WADSWORTH, BELMONT, CA, 2003.
PURCELL, VICTOR. THE CHINESE IN MALAYA. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, KUALA LUMPUR,
(REPRINT), 1975.
ROFF, W.R., THE ORIGINS OF MALAY NATIONALISM. UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA PRESS, KUALA
LUMPUR, 1967.
SMITH, ANTHONY. THE ETHNIC REVIVAL. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, 1981.
STAVENHAGEN, RODOLPHO. THE ETHNIC QUESTION: CONFLICTS, DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN
RIGHTS. UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY, TOKYO, 1990.
http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1861:colonial-rule-2-british-bias-paved-the-path-for-racial-antagonism-&catid=184:british-colony
colonial shames (17)----BRITISH COLONIAL CRIMES----COLONIAL OFFICERS ARE BASTRADS THAT BETRAYING OWN PEOPLE AND OWN NATION..........
Posts Tagged ‘British Crimes’
ONE CHURCHILL = TEN HITLERS
Friday, May 15th, 2009
British-Indian Holocaust
Churchill is our hero because of his leadership in World War 2, but his immense crimes, notably the WW2 Bengali Holocaust, the 1943-1945 Bengal Famine in which Churchill murdered 6-7 million Indians, have been deleted from history by extraordinary Anglo-American and Zionist Holocaust Denial.
In addition to his participation in British colonial war crimes in South Africa, the Sudan, Afghanistan and India as a soldier “just obeying orders”, Churchill was deeply complicit as an Establishment politician, Minister and Leader in the political failures leading to World War 1; the disastrous WW2 Dardanelles campaign; the 1920s bombing of Iraqis and Kurds; political failure leading to World War 2; active promotion of Japanese entry into World War 2, pre-knowledge of the indefensibility of Singapore; pre-knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; opposition to Indian Independence from the crippling obscenity of the British Raj; the 1943-1945 Bengal Famine; the anti-Arab anti-Semitic war-time decision to partition Palestine in favour of racist Zionist colonizers; and promotion of Hindu-Muslim antipathy with resultant Partition carnage and the present Pakistan-India nuclear standoff.
These core crimes will be outlined and documented below (for a very detailed and referenced analysis of Churchill’s crimes see the revised and updated 2008 version of my 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (see:http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ).
However Churchill’s crimes through evil or incompetent involvement in these holocausts have been largely white-washed out of history by a huge body of Anglo-American, Zionist and Australian historians, journalists and politicians. Perhaps the most telling evidence for this entrenched UK, US and Zionist holocaust denial comes from a passage in Tariq Ali’s recent book “Street Fighting”. An Autobiography of the Sixties” (Verso, London, 2005).
In pages 96-98 of this “Street Fighting” book Tariq Ali describes an Oxford Union debate on a Condolence Motion occasioned by the death of Winston Churchill in 1966 and the response by a brilliant anti-Establishment, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist socialist Richard Kirkwood who listed the following of Churchill’s crimes in opposing the Motion [my added dates in square brackets]: “It was Churchill who had been the most vociferous proponent of the armed intervention against the Russian Revolution of 1917; it was he who had justified the use of troops against the Welsh miners of Tonypandy [1910]; led the siege of Sidney Street in East London against a couple of anarchists [1911]; played the provocateur during the General Strike of 1926; backed the Greek far-right against the resistance in 1944; and opposed the Independence of India. It was for his consistent and long record of vindictiveness and hostility towards workers throughout the world that he was being mourned. For these reasons alone, shouted Kirkwood above the growing din, he, for one, would not stand and observe even a second’s silence … He sat down to a chorus of boos, with some of his opponents literally frothing at the mouth. Kirkwood, however, was unmoved. As over 400 people stood up to observe the formalities, about twenty-five of us remained seated and were counted. Kirkwood was delighted. After all, he had separated the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks”
The extraordinary thing is that, due to British, American and Zionist holocaust denial, even a highly educated, anti-racist, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist in 1966 was apparently utterly UNAWARE of the immensity of Winston Churchill’s crimes, of which arguably the most serious was the deliberate, sustained, remorseless starving to death of 6-7 million Indians in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust – an atrocity larger in magnitude than the World War 2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation).
I have provided below a catalogue in chronological order of Churchill’s crimes that are certainly on a par with those of arch-fiend Adolph Hitler in terms of avoidable deaths. Key avoidable death statistics associated with these British Imperial crimes are given in parenthesis (the default references are my books “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” and “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950″ (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ). [One is compelled at this point to ask the questions, what if Churchill, like many of the British Establishment, had been anti-Jewish anti-Semitic as well as anti-Arab ant-Semitic and what if Adolph Hitler had been more "democratic" and played cricket?]
1. Involvement as a soldier in British imperial war crimes in India [1896-1899; compelled on advice to join his regiment in India after charges of homosexual abuse; avoidable deaths in British India 1757-1947 1.5 billion; avoidable deaths in the 1895-1897 famine about 1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine, 6-9 million deaths]; a stint in Sudan at the Battle of Obdurman [1989; horrendous British atrocities]; a stint in South Africa as a war correspondent and thence as a soldier [1899; Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide (1899-1902): 28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps; see: "Australia's secret genocide history" on MWC News: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/22128/42/ ].
2. Churchill was one of the more bellicose members of the British Cabinet prior to the outbreak of World War 1 [World War I Allied military and civilian dead totalled 5.7 million and 3.7 million, respectively, and the German-allied (Central Powers) military and civilian deaths totalled 4.0 million and 5.2 million, respectively; the troop movement-exacerbated Spanish Flu Epidemic killed 20-100 million people world wide: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26587/42/ ].
3. Churchill was responsible for the disastrous 1915 WW1 Dardanelles Campaign in Turkey [that killed 0.2 million Allied and Turkish soldiers and helped to precipitate the 1915-1923 Turkish Armenian Genocide that killed up to 1.5 million Armenians – a genocide that the holocaust-denying Turks, racist Zionists of Apartheid Israel and US Congressmen refuse to acknowledge as such ].
4. Churchill vigorously promoted the unsuccessful UK and US invasion of Russia in response to the Russian Revolution [1917-1919; millions died in the Russian Civil War and the subsequent the Russian Famine; 7 million died in the circa 1930 Ukrainian Famine; and perhaps up to 20 million died overall in Stalinist atrocities i.e. a death toll comparable to that in World War 2].
5. Churchill was involved in the suppression of the Arab revolt in Iraq (invaded by Britain in 1914) and bombing of Kurdish villages [violent British occupation of Iraq involving everything from poison gas (1920s) to mass murder of children (today) occurred on and off in the period 1914 to the present; 1990-2008 Iraqi excess deaths 4 million; under-5 infant deaths 1.8 million; refugees currently 6 million].
6. Churchill was actively involved in the genocidal suppression of India and vehemently opposed Indian self-determination [1757-1947 excess deaths, 1.5 billion; Victorian era excess deaths, 1837-1901 0.5 billion; 1901-1947 excess deaths 0.4 billion; avoidable deaths in the 1895-1897 famine about 1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine, 6-9 million deaths; 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust deaths 6-7 million].
7. Churchill was again one of the more bellicose members of the British Parliament in the 1930s but is generally positively credited with warning the world about the rise of German Nazism [ World War 2 military deaths 25 million and civilian deaths about 67 million].
8. Churchill actively sought the entry of Japan into World War 2 in order to involve the US and hence ensure victory [35 million Chinese avoidable deaths, 1937-1945; 6-7 million Indians perished in Churchill's deliberate scorched earth policy in Bengal 1943-1945; millions more died in the WW2 Eastern Theatre; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)].
9. Churchill knew well in advance that Singapore was indefensible [8,000-15,000 killed, 130,000 captured in the 1941 Malaya campaign; 14,000 Australian, 16,000 British and 32,000 Indian troops surrendered in Singapore; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)].
10. Churchill did not warn the Americans about the impending Pearl Harbor attack [the US authorities knew too but still did not warn their military personnel in Hawaii; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)].
11. Churchill hated Muslims, Arabs and Indians and remorselessly refused food to 6-7 million starving Indians, rejected Viceroy Wavell’s pleas and blocked Canadian attempts at relief [6-7 million Indian deaths – the British Bengali Holocaust death toll being numerically greater than the 5-6 million dead in the Nazi German Jewish Holocaust; see Moon, P. (1973) (editor), Wavell. The Viceroy's Journal (Oxford University Press, London) ].
12. Churchill rejected top scientific advice and supported bombing of German cities instead of protecting Atlantic convoys [0.16 million allied airmen killed; 0.6 million German civilians killed; Battle of the Atlantic almost lost; huge impact on famine in the Indian Ocean region due to halving of Allied shipping in 1943; see Snow, C.P. (1961), Science and Government (The New English Library, London); Behrens, C.B.A. (1955), Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War (Longman's, Green, London, 1955); Taylor, A.J.P. (1975), The Second World War. An Illustrated History (Hamish Hamilton, London) ].
13. Churchill acknowledged the crucial importance of maintaining Hindu-Muslim antipathy to preserve British rule [1 million dead and 18 million Muslim and Hindu refugees associated with India-Pakistan Partition in 1947].
14. Churchill over-rode strong British military objections in 1944 to decide on Partition of Palestine [in 1948 Jews were 1/3 of the population; there are now over 7 million Palestinian refugees; post-1967 Occupied Palestinian excess deaths 0.3 million, post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million; excess deaths in countries partially or completely occupied by Apartheid Israel now total about 24 million; 4 million Occupied Palestinians still illegally and abusively imprisoned by racist Zionist goons in their own country].
15. British, American, Zionist and Australian adoption of Churchill’s holocaust denying legacy, specifically his famous “history is written by the victors”, has ensured continuance of Anglo-American and Zionist atrocities involving invasion, occupation, devastation and genocide [in relation to Occupiers (in parenthesis) 1950-2005 excess deaths in post-1945 occupied countries total 36 million (Belgium) 142 million (France), 24 million (Apartheid Israel), 0.7 million (Apartheid South Africa), 23 million (Portugal), 37 million (Russia), 9 million (Spain), 727 million (the UK) and 82 million (the US); 25 million Indigenous excess deaths in post-1950 US Asian Wars; 9-11 million excess deaths associated with 1990-2008 Bush Wars; post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq 2 million, refugees 6 million; post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan 4-6 million, refugees 4 million).
Yet, to list just s few examples of UK-US holocaust ignoring, there is absolutely NO mention of the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust in the biography of Winston Churchill by pro-Zionist Professor Sir Martin Gilbert (Gilbert, M. (1991), Churchill. A Life (Heinemann, London); the recent histories by leading conservative Australian historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey (Blainey, G. (2000), A Short History of the World (Viking, Melbourne), Blainey, G. (2004), A Very Short History of the World (Viking, Melbourne), Blainey, G. (2005), A Short History of the 20th Century (Penguin, Melbourne); the recent history of Britain by pro-Zionist Professor Simon Schama (Schama, S. (2002), A History of Britain (BBC, London)); or even in an important book on Denial entitled “Denial. History betrayed” by Australian historian Professor Tony Taylor (Monash University, Melbourne; see my review “”Denial” book ignores UK and US genocide crimes”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26450/26/ ).
Another way of gauging this extraordinary English language holocaust ignoring and the ignoring of the immense crimes of Winston Churchill is to do a Yahoo Search for “Hitler’s crimes” (25,000 results) and for “Churchill’s crimes” (54 results, all but a mere several of these referring NOT to Winston Churchill but to horribly persecuted American Indian Professor Ward Churchill’s “Crimes Against Humanity”).
Perhaps, to be fair, we should leave the penultimate words to Winston Churchill himself. Here is a succession of Winston Churchill quotes that say it all.
“In the standard of life they have nothing to spare. The slightest fall from the present standard of life in India means slow starvation, and the actual squeezing out of life, not only of millions but of scores of millions of people, who have come into the world at your invitation and under the shield and protection of British power.”
(Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons about Indians (1935); 1. Hansard of the House of Commons, Winston Churchill speech, Hansard Vol. 302, cols. 1920-21, 1935; quoted by Jog (1944), p195 in Jog, N.G. (1944), Churchill’s Blind-Spot: India (New Book Company, Bombay).).
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” (Winston Churchill to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India (1942); 4. Diary of Amery (Secretary for India), September 9, 1942; quoted by Ziegler (1988), pp 351-352 in Ziegler, P. (1988), Mountbatten. The Official Biography (Collins, London); see also
Moon, P. (1973) (editor), Wavell. The Viceroy’s Journal (Oxford University Press, London).).
“No great portion of the world population was so effectively protected from the horrors and perils of the World War as were the peoples of Hindustan. They were carried through the struggle on the shoulders of our small Island.” (Churchill (1954), vol. 4, p181 in Churchill, W.S. (1954), The Second World War. Volumes I-VI (Cassell, London) – a book in which he makes NO mention of the 6-7 million Indians he murdered in 1943-1945; his statement is a gross falsehood in view of 2.4 million Indians serving in the Allied forces in WW2 and 6-7 million Indian deaths in the 1943-1935 Bengali Holocaust).
“{Churchill} cynically telling the Cabinet in February 1940 that he “regarded the Hindu-Muslim feud as the bulwark of British rule in India”" (p381, Irving, D. (1987), Churchill’s War, Volume I, The Struggle for Power (Veritas, Bullsbrook, WA) ) – from which we glean (p538) “Getting America into the war remained Churchill’s highest priority throughout 1941″, a position consonant with the position of the 1941 UK Ambassador to Japan: “I had, moreover, given it as my considered opinion in October 1941 that Japan’s former desire to avoid war with the United States at almost any cost could no longer be counted upon as a factor in the situation should Japan feel herself to be finally driven into a corner … there can be no doubt that the absence of any British moderating influence, whether at Washington or Tokyo, increased the chances of that breakdown which eventually occurred” (Sir R. Craigie, British Ambassador to Japan in 1941, in his final report to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden (1943); Report of Sir R. Craigie (former British Ambassador to Japan) to Mr. Eden (British Foreign Secretary) in 1943, reproduced in Rusbridger & Nave (1991), Appendix I; Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)).
“History is written by the victor”, an aphorism often attributed to Winston Churchill.
Conclusion
History ignored yields history repeated. This extraordinary holocaust commission, holocaust denial and holocaust ignoring is an object lesson of this aphorism in a 21st century in which the British Imperialism of past centuries has been transmuted into an equally violent and destructive Anglo-American imperialism (excess deaths in the 1990-2008 Bush wars now total 9-11 million). According to the prestigious American Association for the Advancement for Science (AAAS) the world is facing acutely serious nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats – 25,000 nuclear weapons (including the 15,000 of the US and the 200 of nuclear terrorist, war criminal, racist Apartheid Israel); there is a Climate Emergency in which the current 387 ppm atmospheric CO2 is already associated with huge Arctic ice melting, mass species extinctions and coral reef death and top scientists are urging a reduction to no more than 350 ppm; and 16 million people already die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease. Scientific risk management demands zero tolerance for lying.
We can no longer tolerate humanity-threatening lying – there must be general zero tolerance for lying, whether lying by omission or lying by commission. We must resolutely oppose and expose racist, warmongering, genocidal, UK, Zionist and US imperialist lying, holocaust commission and holocaust denial – enough is enough, vastly too many people have died. Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – please inform everyone you know.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26713/42/
Tags: British Crimes
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The Death of Jailbird Heroes By Sanjay Kumar
April 27, 2011
In pre-independence India, prison played a significant role in shaping the personalities of political leaders involved in the fight against British colonial rule. Going to prison was a matter of honour then—a sacrifice in the service of the nation. The dingy confines and suffocating atmosphere of the Cellular Jail for instance—a colonial prison for political prisoners on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands—never deterred determined freedom fighters from defying the imperial government.
In fact, some major historical incidents have taken place in the country’s colonial prisons. The Poona Pact, for example, was made in 1932 between Gandhi and Ambedkar in Yerwada Jail in Pune. Jawaharlal Nehru’s interaction with his fellow prisoners in Ahmednagar Jail, meanwhile, inspired him to write Discovery of India, a wonderful historical narrative of the country.
But post-independence, the image of jail-going politicians has changed dramatically in India, not least because the reasons they’re getting jailed for are far less noble than in the past. The inspiring jailbird heroes of yesteryear are giving way to lawmakers whose mission now is diverting the nation’s wealth for their own gains.
Delhi’s Tihar Jail highlights these changed values. Just look at former cabinet minister Andimuthu Raja, who was taken into judicial custody there for his alleged role in the 2G scandal. Judging from media reports, there could well be plenty more officials following him.
Such unseemly greed stands in stark contrast to the self-sacrifice of campaigners like Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt, who refused to run after throwing bombs at the Central Assembly in Delhi in 1929 (the bombs, as intended, didn’t hurt or kill anyone). Singh was arrested, but used his jail time to write his political treatise, asking that he be allowed to use the courtroom during his trial to address the people about his vision for the nation. And, when the judge issued a death sentence in the case, Singh said he took heart from the belief that his martyrdom would electrify the entire country and inspire a new passion among the people to fight for freedom.
Similarly, when Mohandas Gandhi was charged with sedition in 1922, he used the Ahmedabad trial courtroom to pronounce his views on the British government and spread his ideas of non-violence.
Now, Indians may well have to get used to seeing their elected politicians locked away, having betrayed the trust of the people. The widespread lack of faith in lawmakers was highlighted at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi recently when people from all walks of life gathered to express solidarity with social activist Anna Hazare, who led a fast to draw attention to the issue of rampant corruption and sleaze in the Indian political system.
It’s hard not to wonder whether at the speed with which corruption cases involving politicians are tumbling out of the closet across the country, we might need a dedicated jail to house them all.
The incarceration of the chief of the Commonwealth Games’ Organizing Committee, Suresh Kalmadi,is certainly long overdue. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, the young leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, meanwhile, appears to be on the waiting list, as is the chief minister of Karnataka, Bookanakere Siddalingappa Yeddyurappa,and some of his cabinet colleagues.
One man who really deserves a stint in isolation, though, is Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat. But Modi’s alleged crime isn’t tied to the diversion of public money. Instead, many hold him directly responsible for violence that led to the deaths of hundreds of Muslims in unrest that engulfed the state in 2002.
The sad thing is that the apparent decline in standards among our elected officials isn’t a regional phenomenon, it’s a national one. It seems that these days, those left kicking their heels behind bars will be writing The Destruction of India, not The Discovery of India.
http://the-diplomat.com/indian-decade/2011/04/27/the-death-of-jailbird-heroes/
Colonial hero of the high seas: against seemingly insurmountable odds, John Paul Jones sailed to military victory time after time, becoming one of America's greatest naval commanders. (History - Struggle for Freedom).
The New American
January 27, 2003 | Anderson, Mark Samuel | Copyright
Share
Little known is the history of an officer of the infant Continental Navy who took the War of Independence all the way to British soil to carry out surprise raids. Responding to Britain's looting and burning of Colonial America, this early naval hero damaged or destroyed strongholds and absconded with needed supplies. And while he initially met little resistance, that soon changed.
In the early fall of 1779, the daring sea rover was again sailing the frigid waters off England's coast, looking for British supply ships to seize. But Britain had had its fill of this rogue sailor who was audaciously challenging Britain on her own turf, while successfully preventing large amounts of British supplies from reaching the colonies. The rogue had to be stopped. The hunt was on.
It was September 23rd. While still within sight of the English coast, the Continental Navy commander was secure in his ship, the French-built Bonhomme Richard. A crew member spotted a large convoy of merchant ships protected by two English warships, the H.M.S. Serapis and the H.M.S. Countess of Scarborough. The seasoned skipper of the Serapis, Richard Pearson, knew his American enemy was close and was on the lookout. Just after 6:30 p.m., the American commander, who had displayed a British Union Jack to cause confusion, suddenly took it down and sent up the Stars and Stripes before engaging the Serapis. Soon the two ships were locked in point-blank combat in what became known as the Battle of Flamborough Head.
Hundreds of people gathered on the chalk cliffs of Flamborough Head to watch the battle, which lasted for nearly four hours with unremitting fury and was later regarded as one of the most desperate and sanguinary fights in naval history. Most onlookers undoubtedly hoped they would witness the Bonhomme Richard's destruction. Many British citizens regarded its captain as a "pirate" whose skullduggery rivaled that of Blackbeard. British chapbooks, the entertainment "magazines" of that time, even carried caricatures of the Richard's captain to drive home this unsavory image.
Cannon fire boomed in both directions, ripping the ships apart piece by piece. As the citizens looked on, the two frigates became entangled together so tightly that the muzzles of the cannons from both ships at times were touching each other. Jones purposely positioned the Richard close to the swifter, copper-bottomed Serapis to deny the larger ship the advantage of its larger and more numerous cannons. Meanwhile, the Alliance, which was sailing with Jones and commanded by a Frenchman, engaged the Countess of Scarborough.
After considerable rifle and cannon fire exchange, the Richard had lost virtually all its cannons, although its captain dragged a nine-pounder across the deck to fire at the enemy himself. Many of the Richard's crew members had been killed or wounded. Although the Serapis was also badly damaged with heavy casualties, Pearson seemed to have the upper hand. Assuming victory was near, Pearson followed protocol by grabbing his megaphone and asking the opposing American captain if he wanted quarter.
"I have not yet begun to fight!" was the unwavering reply.
As the Richard took on water, some of its French marines, buoyed by their leader's ferocious determination, climbed the ropes. When a resourceful crew member lobbed a black powder grenade squarely into the hatch of the …
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-97422829.html
ONE CHURCHILL = TEN HITLERS
Friday, May 15th, 2009
British-Indian Holocaust
Churchill is our hero because of his leadership in World War 2, but his immense crimes, notably the WW2 Bengali Holocaust, the 1943-1945 Bengal Famine in which Churchill murdered 6-7 million Indians, have been deleted from history by extraordinary Anglo-American and Zionist Holocaust Denial.
In addition to his participation in British colonial war crimes in South Africa, the Sudan, Afghanistan and India as a soldier “just obeying orders”, Churchill was deeply complicit as an Establishment politician, Minister and Leader in the political failures leading to World War 1; the disastrous WW2 Dardanelles campaign; the 1920s bombing of Iraqis and Kurds; political failure leading to World War 2; active promotion of Japanese entry into World War 2, pre-knowledge of the indefensibility of Singapore; pre-knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; opposition to Indian Independence from the crippling obscenity of the British Raj; the 1943-1945 Bengal Famine; the anti-Arab anti-Semitic war-time decision to partition Palestine in favour of racist Zionist colonizers; and promotion of Hindu-Muslim antipathy with resultant Partition carnage and the present Pakistan-India nuclear standoff.
These core crimes will be outlined and documented below (for a very detailed and referenced analysis of Churchill’s crimes see the revised and updated 2008 version of my 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (see:http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ).
However Churchill’s crimes through evil or incompetent involvement in these holocausts have been largely white-washed out of history by a huge body of Anglo-American, Zionist and Australian historians, journalists and politicians. Perhaps the most telling evidence for this entrenched UK, US and Zionist holocaust denial comes from a passage in Tariq Ali’s recent book “Street Fighting”. An Autobiography of the Sixties” (Verso, London, 2005).
In pages 96-98 of this “Street Fighting” book Tariq Ali describes an Oxford Union debate on a Condolence Motion occasioned by the death of Winston Churchill in 1966 and the response by a brilliant anti-Establishment, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist socialist Richard Kirkwood who listed the following of Churchill’s crimes in opposing the Motion [my added dates in square brackets]: “It was Churchill who had been the most vociferous proponent of the armed intervention against the Russian Revolution of 1917; it was he who had justified the use of troops against the Welsh miners of Tonypandy [1910]; led the siege of Sidney Street in East London against a couple of anarchists [1911]; played the provocateur during the General Strike of 1926; backed the Greek far-right against the resistance in 1944; and opposed the Independence of India. It was for his consistent and long record of vindictiveness and hostility towards workers throughout the world that he was being mourned. For these reasons alone, shouted Kirkwood above the growing din, he, for one, would not stand and observe even a second’s silence … He sat down to a chorus of boos, with some of his opponents literally frothing at the mouth. Kirkwood, however, was unmoved. As over 400 people stood up to observe the formalities, about twenty-five of us remained seated and were counted. Kirkwood was delighted. After all, he had separated the Bolsheviks from the Mensheviks”
The extraordinary thing is that, due to British, American and Zionist holocaust denial, even a highly educated, anti-racist, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist in 1966 was apparently utterly UNAWARE of the immensity of Winston Churchill’s crimes, of which arguably the most serious was the deliberate, sustained, remorseless starving to death of 6-7 million Indians in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust – an atrocity larger in magnitude than the World War 2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation).
I have provided below a catalogue in chronological order of Churchill’s crimes that are certainly on a par with those of arch-fiend Adolph Hitler in terms of avoidable deaths. Key avoidable death statistics associated with these British Imperial crimes are given in parenthesis (the default references are my books “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” and “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950″ (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ). [One is compelled at this point to ask the questions, what if Churchill, like many of the British Establishment, had been anti-Jewish anti-Semitic as well as anti-Arab ant-Semitic and what if Adolph Hitler had been more "democratic" and played cricket?]
1. Involvement as a soldier in British imperial war crimes in India [1896-1899; compelled on advice to join his regiment in India after charges of homosexual abuse; avoidable deaths in British India 1757-1947 1.5 billion; avoidable deaths in the 1895-1897 famine about 1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine, 6-9 million deaths]; a stint in Sudan at the Battle of Obdurman [1989; horrendous British atrocities]; a stint in South Africa as a war correspondent and thence as a soldier [1899; Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide (1899-1902): 28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps; see: "Australia's secret genocide history" on MWC News: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/22128/42/ ].
2. Churchill was one of the more bellicose members of the British Cabinet prior to the outbreak of World War 1 [World War I Allied military and civilian dead totalled 5.7 million and 3.7 million, respectively, and the German-allied (Central Powers) military and civilian deaths totalled 4.0 million and 5.2 million, respectively; the troop movement-exacerbated Spanish Flu Epidemic killed 20-100 million people world wide: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26587/42/ ].
3. Churchill was responsible for the disastrous 1915 WW1 Dardanelles Campaign in Turkey [that killed 0.2 million Allied and Turkish soldiers and helped to precipitate the 1915-1923 Turkish Armenian Genocide that killed up to 1.5 million Armenians – a genocide that the holocaust-denying Turks, racist Zionists of Apartheid Israel and US Congressmen refuse to acknowledge as such ].
4. Churchill vigorously promoted the unsuccessful UK and US invasion of Russia in response to the Russian Revolution [1917-1919; millions died in the Russian Civil War and the subsequent the Russian Famine; 7 million died in the circa 1930 Ukrainian Famine; and perhaps up to 20 million died overall in Stalinist atrocities i.e. a death toll comparable to that in World War 2].
5. Churchill was involved in the suppression of the Arab revolt in Iraq (invaded by Britain in 1914) and bombing of Kurdish villages [violent British occupation of Iraq involving everything from poison gas (1920s) to mass murder of children (today) occurred on and off in the period 1914 to the present; 1990-2008 Iraqi excess deaths 4 million; under-5 infant deaths 1.8 million; refugees currently 6 million].
6. Churchill was actively involved in the genocidal suppression of India and vehemently opposed Indian self-determination [1757-1947 excess deaths, 1.5 billion; Victorian era excess deaths, 1837-1901 0.5 billion; 1901-1947 excess deaths 0.4 billion; avoidable deaths in the 1895-1897 famine about 1 million; 1899-1900 Indian Famine, 6-9 million deaths; 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust deaths 6-7 million].
7. Churchill was again one of the more bellicose members of the British Parliament in the 1930s but is generally positively credited with warning the world about the rise of German Nazism [ World War 2 military deaths 25 million and civilian deaths about 67 million].
8. Churchill actively sought the entry of Japan into World War 2 in order to involve the US and hence ensure victory [35 million Chinese avoidable deaths, 1937-1945; 6-7 million Indians perished in Churchill's deliberate scorched earth policy in Bengal 1943-1945; millions more died in the WW2 Eastern Theatre; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)].
9. Churchill knew well in advance that Singapore was indefensible [8,000-15,000 killed, 130,000 captured in the 1941 Malaya campaign; 14,000 Australian, 16,000 British and 32,000 Indian troops surrendered in Singapore; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)].
10. Churchill did not warn the Americans about the impending Pearl Harbor attack [the US authorities knew too but still did not warn their military personnel in Hawaii; see Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)].
11. Churchill hated Muslims, Arabs and Indians and remorselessly refused food to 6-7 million starving Indians, rejected Viceroy Wavell’s pleas and blocked Canadian attempts at relief [6-7 million Indian deaths – the British Bengali Holocaust death toll being numerically greater than the 5-6 million dead in the Nazi German Jewish Holocaust; see Moon, P. (1973) (editor), Wavell. The Viceroy's Journal (Oxford University Press, London) ].
12. Churchill rejected top scientific advice and supported bombing of German cities instead of protecting Atlantic convoys [0.16 million allied airmen killed; 0.6 million German civilians killed; Battle of the Atlantic almost lost; huge impact on famine in the Indian Ocean region due to halving of Allied shipping in 1943; see Snow, C.P. (1961), Science and Government (The New English Library, London); Behrens, C.B.A. (1955), Merchant Shipping and the Demands of War (Longman's, Green, London, 1955); Taylor, A.J.P. (1975), The Second World War. An Illustrated History (Hamish Hamilton, London) ].
13. Churchill acknowledged the crucial importance of maintaining Hindu-Muslim antipathy to preserve British rule [1 million dead and 18 million Muslim and Hindu refugees associated with India-Pakistan Partition in 1947].
14. Churchill over-rode strong British military objections in 1944 to decide on Partition of Palestine [in 1948 Jews were 1/3 of the population; there are now over 7 million Palestinian refugees; post-1967 Occupied Palestinian excess deaths 0.3 million, post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million; excess deaths in countries partially or completely occupied by Apartheid Israel now total about 24 million; 4 million Occupied Palestinians still illegally and abusively imprisoned by racist Zionist goons in their own country].
15. British, American, Zionist and Australian adoption of Churchill’s holocaust denying legacy, specifically his famous “history is written by the victors”, has ensured continuance of Anglo-American and Zionist atrocities involving invasion, occupation, devastation and genocide [in relation to Occupiers (in parenthesis) 1950-2005 excess deaths in post-1945 occupied countries total 36 million (Belgium) 142 million (France), 24 million (Apartheid Israel), 0.7 million (Apartheid South Africa), 23 million (Portugal), 37 million (Russia), 9 million (Spain), 727 million (the UK) and 82 million (the US); 25 million Indigenous excess deaths in post-1950 US Asian Wars; 9-11 million excess deaths associated with 1990-2008 Bush Wars; post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq 2 million, refugees 6 million; post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan 4-6 million, refugees 4 million).
Yet, to list just s few examples of UK-US holocaust ignoring, there is absolutely NO mention of the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust in the biography of Winston Churchill by pro-Zionist Professor Sir Martin Gilbert (Gilbert, M. (1991), Churchill. A Life (Heinemann, London); the recent histories by leading conservative Australian historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey (Blainey, G. (2000), A Short History of the World (Viking, Melbourne), Blainey, G. (2004), A Very Short History of the World (Viking, Melbourne), Blainey, G. (2005), A Short History of the 20th Century (Penguin, Melbourne); the recent history of Britain by pro-Zionist Professor Simon Schama (Schama, S. (2002), A History of Britain (BBC, London)); or even in an important book on Denial entitled “Denial. History betrayed” by Australian historian Professor Tony Taylor (Monash University, Melbourne; see my review “”Denial” book ignores UK and US genocide crimes”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26450/26/ ).
Another way of gauging this extraordinary English language holocaust ignoring and the ignoring of the immense crimes of Winston Churchill is to do a Yahoo Search for “Hitler’s crimes” (25,000 results) and for “Churchill’s crimes” (54 results, all but a mere several of these referring NOT to Winston Churchill but to horribly persecuted American Indian Professor Ward Churchill’s “Crimes Against Humanity”).
Perhaps, to be fair, we should leave the penultimate words to Winston Churchill himself. Here is a succession of Winston Churchill quotes that say it all.
“In the standard of life they have nothing to spare. The slightest fall from the present standard of life in India means slow starvation, and the actual squeezing out of life, not only of millions but of scores of millions of people, who have come into the world at your invitation and under the shield and protection of British power.”
(Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons about Indians (1935); 1. Hansard of the House of Commons, Winston Churchill speech, Hansard Vol. 302, cols. 1920-21, 1935; quoted by Jog (1944), p195 in Jog, N.G. (1944), Churchill’s Blind-Spot: India (New Book Company, Bombay).).
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” (Winston Churchill to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India (1942); 4. Diary of Amery (Secretary for India), September 9, 1942; quoted by Ziegler (1988), pp 351-352 in Ziegler, P. (1988), Mountbatten. The Official Biography (Collins, London); see also
Moon, P. (1973) (editor), Wavell. The Viceroy’s Journal (Oxford University Press, London).).
“No great portion of the world population was so effectively protected from the horrors and perils of the World War as were the peoples of Hindustan. They were carried through the struggle on the shoulders of our small Island.” (Churchill (1954), vol. 4, p181 in Churchill, W.S. (1954), The Second World War. Volumes I-VI (Cassell, London) – a book in which he makes NO mention of the 6-7 million Indians he murdered in 1943-1945; his statement is a gross falsehood in view of 2.4 million Indians serving in the Allied forces in WW2 and 6-7 million Indian deaths in the 1943-1935 Bengali Holocaust).
“{Churchill} cynically telling the Cabinet in February 1940 that he “regarded the Hindu-Muslim feud as the bulwark of British rule in India”" (p381, Irving, D. (1987), Churchill’s War, Volume I, The Struggle for Power (Veritas, Bullsbrook, WA) ) – from which we glean (p538) “Getting America into the war remained Churchill’s highest priority throughout 1941″, a position consonant with the position of the 1941 UK Ambassador to Japan: “I had, moreover, given it as my considered opinion in October 1941 that Japan’s former desire to avoid war with the United States at almost any cost could no longer be counted upon as a factor in the situation should Japan feel herself to be finally driven into a corner … there can be no doubt that the absence of any British moderating influence, whether at Washington or Tokyo, increased the chances of that breakdown which eventually occurred” (Sir R. Craigie, British Ambassador to Japan in 1941, in his final report to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden (1943); Report of Sir R. Craigie (former British Ambassador to Japan) to Mr. Eden (British Foreign Secretary) in 1943, reproduced in Rusbridger & Nave (1991), Appendix I; Rusbridger, J. and Nave, E. (1991), Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II (Summit, New York)).
“History is written by the victor”, an aphorism often attributed to Winston Churchill.
Conclusion
History ignored yields history repeated. This extraordinary holocaust commission, holocaust denial and holocaust ignoring is an object lesson of this aphorism in a 21st century in which the British Imperialism of past centuries has been transmuted into an equally violent and destructive Anglo-American imperialism (excess deaths in the 1990-2008 Bush wars now total 9-11 million). According to the prestigious American Association for the Advancement for Science (AAAS) the world is facing acutely serious nuclear, greenhouse and poverty threats – 25,000 nuclear weapons (including the 15,000 of the US and the 200 of nuclear terrorist, war criminal, racist Apartheid Israel); there is a Climate Emergency in which the current 387 ppm atmospheric CO2 is already associated with huge Arctic ice melting, mass species extinctions and coral reef death and top scientists are urging a reduction to no more than 350 ppm; and 16 million people already die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease. Scientific risk management demands zero tolerance for lying.
We can no longer tolerate humanity-threatening lying – there must be general zero tolerance for lying, whether lying by omission or lying by commission. We must resolutely oppose and expose racist, warmongering, genocidal, UK, Zionist and US imperialist lying, holocaust commission and holocaust denial – enough is enough, vastly too many people have died. Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – please inform everyone you know.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26713/42/
Tags: British Crimes
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The Death of Jailbird Heroes By Sanjay Kumar
April 27, 2011
In pre-independence India, prison played a significant role in shaping the personalities of political leaders involved in the fight against British colonial rule. Going to prison was a matter of honour then—a sacrifice in the service of the nation. The dingy confines and suffocating atmosphere of the Cellular Jail for instance—a colonial prison for political prisoners on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands—never deterred determined freedom fighters from defying the imperial government.
In fact, some major historical incidents have taken place in the country’s colonial prisons. The Poona Pact, for example, was made in 1932 between Gandhi and Ambedkar in Yerwada Jail in Pune. Jawaharlal Nehru’s interaction with his fellow prisoners in Ahmednagar Jail, meanwhile, inspired him to write Discovery of India, a wonderful historical narrative of the country.
But post-independence, the image of jail-going politicians has changed dramatically in India, not least because the reasons they’re getting jailed for are far less noble than in the past. The inspiring jailbird heroes of yesteryear are giving way to lawmakers whose mission now is diverting the nation’s wealth for their own gains.
Delhi’s Tihar Jail highlights these changed values. Just look at former cabinet minister Andimuthu Raja, who was taken into judicial custody there for his alleged role in the 2G scandal. Judging from media reports, there could well be plenty more officials following him.
Such unseemly greed stands in stark contrast to the self-sacrifice of campaigners like Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt, who refused to run after throwing bombs at the Central Assembly in Delhi in 1929 (the bombs, as intended, didn’t hurt or kill anyone). Singh was arrested, but used his jail time to write his political treatise, asking that he be allowed to use the courtroom during his trial to address the people about his vision for the nation. And, when the judge issued a death sentence in the case, Singh said he took heart from the belief that his martyrdom would electrify the entire country and inspire a new passion among the people to fight for freedom.
Similarly, when Mohandas Gandhi was charged with sedition in 1922, he used the Ahmedabad trial courtroom to pronounce his views on the British government and spread his ideas of non-violence.
Now, Indians may well have to get used to seeing their elected politicians locked away, having betrayed the trust of the people. The widespread lack of faith in lawmakers was highlighted at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi recently when people from all walks of life gathered to express solidarity with social activist Anna Hazare, who led a fast to draw attention to the issue of rampant corruption and sleaze in the Indian political system.
It’s hard not to wonder whether at the speed with which corruption cases involving politicians are tumbling out of the closet across the country, we might need a dedicated jail to house them all.
The incarceration of the chief of the Commonwealth Games’ Organizing Committee, Suresh Kalmadi,is certainly long overdue. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, the young leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, meanwhile, appears to be on the waiting list, as is the chief minister of Karnataka, Bookanakere Siddalingappa Yeddyurappa,and some of his cabinet colleagues.
One man who really deserves a stint in isolation, though, is Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat. But Modi’s alleged crime isn’t tied to the diversion of public money. Instead, many hold him directly responsible for violence that led to the deaths of hundreds of Muslims in unrest that engulfed the state in 2002.
The sad thing is that the apparent decline in standards among our elected officials isn’t a regional phenomenon, it’s a national one. It seems that these days, those left kicking their heels behind bars will be writing The Destruction of India, not The Discovery of India.
http://the-diplomat.com/indian-decade/2011/04/27/the-death-of-jailbird-heroes/
Colonial hero of the high seas: against seemingly insurmountable odds, John Paul Jones sailed to military victory time after time, becoming one of America's greatest naval commanders. (History - Struggle for Freedom).
The New American
January 27, 2003 | Anderson, Mark Samuel | Copyright
Share
Little known is the history of an officer of the infant Continental Navy who took the War of Independence all the way to British soil to carry out surprise raids. Responding to Britain's looting and burning of Colonial America, this early naval hero damaged or destroyed strongholds and absconded with needed supplies. And while he initially met little resistance, that soon changed.
In the early fall of 1779, the daring sea rover was again sailing the frigid waters off England's coast, looking for British supply ships to seize. But Britain had had its fill of this rogue sailor who was audaciously challenging Britain on her own turf, while successfully preventing large amounts of British supplies from reaching the colonies. The rogue had to be stopped. The hunt was on.
It was September 23rd. While still within sight of the English coast, the Continental Navy commander was secure in his ship, the French-built Bonhomme Richard. A crew member spotted a large convoy of merchant ships protected by two English warships, the H.M.S. Serapis and the H.M.S. Countess of Scarborough. The seasoned skipper of the Serapis, Richard Pearson, knew his American enemy was close and was on the lookout. Just after 6:30 p.m., the American commander, who had displayed a British Union Jack to cause confusion, suddenly took it down and sent up the Stars and Stripes before engaging the Serapis. Soon the two ships were locked in point-blank combat in what became known as the Battle of Flamborough Head.
Hundreds of people gathered on the chalk cliffs of Flamborough Head to watch the battle, which lasted for nearly four hours with unremitting fury and was later regarded as one of the most desperate and sanguinary fights in naval history. Most onlookers undoubtedly hoped they would witness the Bonhomme Richard's destruction. Many British citizens regarded its captain as a "pirate" whose skullduggery rivaled that of Blackbeard. British chapbooks, the entertainment "magazines" of that time, even carried caricatures of the Richard's captain to drive home this unsavory image.
Cannon fire boomed in both directions, ripping the ships apart piece by piece. As the citizens looked on, the two frigates became entangled together so tightly that the muzzles of the cannons from both ships at times were touching each other. Jones purposely positioned the Richard close to the swifter, copper-bottomed Serapis to deny the larger ship the advantage of its larger and more numerous cannons. Meanwhile, the Alliance, which was sailing with Jones and commanded by a Frenchman, engaged the Countess of Scarborough.
After considerable rifle and cannon fire exchange, the Richard had lost virtually all its cannons, although its captain dragged a nine-pounder across the deck to fire at the enemy himself. Many of the Richard's crew members had been killed or wounded. Although the Serapis was also badly damaged with heavy casualties, Pearson seemed to have the upper hand. Assuming victory was near, Pearson followed protocol by grabbing his megaphone and asking the opposing American captain if he wanted quarter.
"I have not yet begun to fight!" was the unwavering reply.
As the Richard took on water, some of its French marines, buoyed by their leader's ferocious determination, climbed the ropes. When a resourceful crew member lobbed a black powder grenade squarely into the hatch of the …
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-97422829.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)