Another question: when was Malaysia formed?
Bonus question: how old was Malaysia on August 31, 1962?
One last question: how old will Malaysia be on August 31, 2010?
Category: History & heritage
There was a debate in Australia last year regarding adoption of its own bill of rights. Yes, as shocking as it first sounded to a foreigner like me, Australia does not have its own bill of rights.
Although the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts insisted several times that he does not intend to participate in that Australian debate, I believe it is hard not to make a connection between his recently concluded lecture in Sydney and the debate in general. An article by the Financial Review reveals that he delivered another lecture on bill of rights in Melbourne yesterday.
It was just days ago when the New York Times ran a story how the US Supreme Court under Roberts is the most conservative in decades. One could not tell where he sits on the political spectrum based on the lecture however. I definitely could not as I stood at the back of the lecture theater.
The US at its independence in 1776 did not have a bill of rights. Its adoption itself was not automatic. As Roberts said, its adoption did not derive from the first principle but rather, it was through a political process. That political process was not too conducive to its adoption, regardless of the fact that it was eventually adopted later.
The US Chief Justice mentioned several theories why the Bill of Rights was not adopted early with respect to July 4 1776 and the ratification date of the US Constitution. If my memory is not one belonging to a goldfish, he mentioned that the weather as one of them. An uncharacteristic sweltering Philadelphian summer was making further discussion on the Constitution of the US unbearable. Most understood that a discussion on Bill of Rights would lengthen an already long meeting further and most wanted it to end.
Another theory, revolves around a matter of priority. The US was a young country then and there were multiple challenges that required to be addressed urgently. Despite history of individual freedom in America, bill of rights simply was not one of them.
Furthermore, the 13 founding states have already in one way or another have their own bill of rights although interpretations differ. For instance, some states have freedom of assembly included while others do not.
Although these factors may contribute to the late adoption of the Bill of Rights, nothing was more important than the division between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists feared that an adoption of a national Bill of Rights might take power away from the states and to the federal government.
The battle regarding the Bill of Rights, according to Roberts, was really a proxy battle between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists were playing up to states’ fear of losing influence to a powerful federal government.
When James Madison — who later became the fourth US President — proposed the then controversial Bill of Rights in the Congress, he had to personally see the Bill through it. When he pushed it, the Congress decided to have a committee to contemplate on the matter. Roberts said this in a humorous manner, perhaps as an acknowledgement how things move slowly at the Capitol Hill.
Roberts contrasted this to Madison. He stressed how notoriously hardworking Madison was. He joked that two of Madison’s Vice Presidents died in office.
Unwilling to let the matter drag, Madison sat in the committee and had the committee completed its work in only a week time, maybe, much to the chagrin of the Congress. There were some other political barriers but those were eventually overcome as the slowly anti-Federalists lost interest in defeating the Bill.
By December 15 1791, the influential Bill of Rights came into effect.
I have always loved war memorials. I have been to the Tugu Negara in Kuala Lumpur multiple of times. When I was in Washington D.C. for a very short stay, I visited the war memorials there. Likewise in Sydney and Melbourne. The reason for my love for war memorials is not because that I glorify wars. Rather, it is closely related to my love of history.
While I do think wars sometimes are necessary, especially when liberty is under attack to make wars a serious option for libertarians, I do not cherish the thoughts of its necessity. Wars are never pretty but the wars that Malaysia went through, notably against Japanese imperialism during World War II, against communist terrorism for a good part of the country’s history and against attempt of invasion by Indonesia during the formation of Malaysian federation, were certainly wars that could not be avoided in terms of preservation of liberty.
Australia is one of several countries which have dedicated its men and women to the defense of Malaysia or its current components prior to 1963. Malaysia won the wars because of countries like Australia.
Australia remembers this in Sydney in form of the Anzac War Memorial…
…and in Melbourne in form of the Shrine of Remembrance:
Belated maybe, but I say thank you nonetheless. It has been a fruitful alliance.
Forgive, but never forget the tyranny of communism and socialism.
[youtube]WjWDrTXMgF8[/youtube]
I do feel that in many cases, general Malaysians do have unfair perception of Indonesia as well as have acted unfairly against far too many Indonesians living in Malaysia. But the current sentiment in Indonesia is bordering a ridiculous level. Silly jingoism is playing out in Indonesia.
In the Jakarta Globe, a state recording executive claims that Malaysia — to use the zeigeist of anti-Malaysia in Indonesia — ‘stole’ the tune of Negaraku from the Indonesian song of Terang Bulan.
An executive of Lokananta, a state recording company based in Solo has drawn attention to Malaysia’s national anthem, ”Negaraku,” claiming that it is suspiciously similar in tune to ”Terang Bulan,” a song written by the Bandung Ensemble and first recorded by Lokananta in March 1956 — a year before Malaysia’s independence was announced on Aug. 31, 1957.
”Terang Bulan is a keroncong song, meant for entertainment. Why did they take it for their anthem?” asked Ruktiningsih, head of Lokananta.
”Does Malaysia really have no dignity at all?”
Keroncong is a melodious musical genre that has its roots in Portuguese music and is usually played on violins, flutes and a small, ukelele-like guitar.
Ruktiningsih said that ”Terang Bulan” was one of 49 Indonesian songs recorded in Jakarta by national radio station RRI on the orders of then President Sukarno in 1956. The songs were later made into a record by Lokananta. [Malaysian anthem actually Indonesian, says record company. Candra Malik. Jakarta Globe. August 29 2009]
Let us disregard the fact that modern Southeast Asian states, Indonesia and Malaysia included, did not exist before about mid-20th century. Let us ignore the fact that the current boundary between the two countries only came into existence in the 1820s by virtue of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty. Let us ignore that culture spread and shared by lands what are now called Indonesia and Malaysia. Let us ignore too that many Indonesian citizens became Malaysians in modern times and that they too practice their culture, which is more or less similar to Indonesian, bar assimiliation process that occurred while their adopt local practice.
Even after discounting those historical accidents, the insinuation is odd.
It is odd because the tune was first recorded to be heard in Seychelles in mid-19th centry, and first played by the government of Perak as its state anthem in 1888 or 1901 in England. On top of that, the tune was composed by a Frenchman. The Federation of Malaya later decided to modify Perak’s anthem into the federation’s anthem. The anthem continues to act as the national anthem of a larger federation called Malaysia when the 11 states of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore decided to federate.[1]
Rather than Malaysia internalizing an Indonesian song, the 1956 Indonesia song originated from the same source as Negaraku. If the executive is to define ownership of the tune as the one that first created it, then both Malaysia and Indonesia have no ownership over it. The ownership should belong to that dead Frenchman.
[1] — See The National Anthem of Malaysia – Negaraku at Malaysian Monarchy. Accessed August 29 2009.