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..

This post has been edited by rolling2014: Apr 16 2015, 02:00 PM

Independence need not necessarily be from a colony to an independent state.

It can also be from a protectorate to an full sovereign state.

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

This post has been edited by rolling2014: Apr 16 2015, 02:28 PM

It is called different of opinions.. as i said.. both opinions are accurate depending on ur definition of colony

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..

This post has been edited by rolling2014: Apr 16 2015, 04:19 PM

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..

This post has been edited by rolling2014: Apr 16 2015, 05:42 PM

thats the ISIS argument.. anybody associated to Britian is its lackey and is a legitimate military target eventho that person is innocent. The real world is not that black and white

the actual problem with rachel's letter is that on one end she agrees "...the fact that there are structural differences between a protectorate and colony" but on another criticize Khoo for highlighting that the Malay sultanates (by structure) were not British colonies but instead were British protectorates. Khoo defined being colonized as being a colony but she is judging him based on another definition (ie handing over administrative control in whatever structure means you are colonized). Khoo also never disputed that British ruled by proxy, he wrote "policy of ruling the Malays through their sultan" but he didnt call it colonization. At most she has a terminology dispute with Khoo. Her accusation that Khoo presented a perversed version of history is overblown.

From the definition used by Khoo, British India like Malaya too consist of British colony (directly ruled by Britain like Penang, Malacca) and protectorates (ie Princely States).

This post has been edited by rolling2014: Apr 17 2015, 07:58 AM