Dinaung or dijajah. I would say both interpretations are accurate depending on ur definition of a colony

Reading the Pangkor Treaty where Raja Abdullah was acknowledged as the legitimate Sultan to replace Sultan Ismail and the Sultan would receive a British Resident whose advice had to be sought in all matters except those pertaining to the religion and customs of the Malays. We were never legally a British colony

But we did agree to listen to what the British said lest they might invade us or stand by as other empires do. That too can be said to be colonization.

It is not clear cut, black and white..

That is also debatable.  Federation of Malaya is still legally a protectorate. And one can say British is losing influence as the people are asserting our desire for full sovereignty (eg move for independence)

Actually the court have Khoo Kay Kim to share his expert view on a matter that is not as black and white as rachel put it. It is not like he filed a suit against Mat Sabu

but thats not his fault the law punish ppl for belittling brutally murdered cops as lackeys

He was simply asked to give an expert opinion in court on history... and tats what he did.. his view we were not a colony but a protectorate. Tats not perversion of history IMO because as I wrote both views are accurate depending on ur definitions of colony..

Not legally a colony =/= full sovereignty

as a protectorate,we listened to what big brother say but we regained our full sovereignty from the brits at independence.

some might argue tat already means we r colony.. but as I said both opinions are accurate depending on ur definition of colony.
They may be freedom fighters but they killed civilians and police personnel who was just keeping the peace (ie not fighting communists). So hard to see them as national heros in the same way as tunku abd rahman.. tats how i see it..