Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Kedah was not under Siamese rule

views
     
azarimy
post Nov 1 2021, 09:32 AM

mister architect: the arrogant pr*ck
Group Icon
Elite
10,672 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: shah alam - skudai - shah alam


QUOTE(changejob @ Nov 1 2021, 09:27 AM)
We definitely didn't have political will or governance. Its all in the hands of the British.

As far for total assimilation, I think many countries in the world were conquered without total assimilation.

Because if you are arguing conquered = total assimilation, I think you can argue that British technically never conquered anyone. Even the Indians retained their identities.

Yet India were clearly under the British empire.
*
That's the thing: The English don't use the word "conquered". They avoid using it. They believe in some form of parent-child relationship between them and the colonized countries. All commonwealth countries were under the British Empire, but we were not conquered. We were colonised.
JimbeamofNRT
post Nov 1 2021, 09:34 AM

the Original Lanji@_ Chicken Rice Shop Since 2002
******
Senior Member
1,902 posts

Joined: Sep 2012

QUOTE(Srbn @ Nov 1 2021, 08:06 AM)

‘Dead wrong’ to say Kedah was under Siamese rule, says professor

“Why would we rely on another country’s perspective of our history?

“It is treacherous and seditious for PHT to make such claims based on the history narrated by another country.”

*
Burney Treaty 1826 - The treaty acknowledged Siamese claims over the five northern Malay states of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Terengganu—the future Unfederated Malay States—and Patani.
The treaty further guaranteed British possession of Penang and their rights to trade in Kelantan and Terengganu without Siamese interference.

Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 - Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah ,Kelantan , Perlis and Terengganu

Article 1
The Siamese government transfers to the British government all rights of suzerainty, protection, administration and control whatsoever which they possess over the states of Kelantan, Tringganu, Kedah, Perlis, and adjacent islands. The frontiers of these territories are defined by the boundary protocol annexed hereto.


----

how lah this topkek fella can become professor?
tontolou
post Nov 1 2021, 09:35 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
40 posts

Joined: Jan 2012


QUOTE(azarimy @ Nov 1 2021, 08:48 AM)
The word they used was 'tidak pernah dijajah'. This is semantics, because dijajah means conquered. And we were never conquered, per se. We were colonised.

Hence technically, you can see why they say 'tidak pernah dijajah'.
*
But teacher, isn't what was interpreted in Kamus Dewan dan Pustaka translate that dijajah is colonise?

Then isn't conquered in Malay, ditawan?
chrisweeks
post Nov 1 2021, 09:36 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
8 posts

Joined: Aug 2021

International Islamic University Malaysia’s Ahmad Murad Merican

His face looks exactly like I predicted.


user posted image

‘Dead wrong’ to say Kedah was under Siamese rule, says professor


"In 1813, King Rama II commanded Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah of Kedah to bring the Sultanate of Perak under Siamese control. Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah then sent forces to capture and occupy Perak under the domination of Kedah on behalf of Siam in 1818.[4] This earned Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah a great favor of the Siamese king, who raised the sultan to the rank of Chao Phraya - which was superior to Nakhon Noi the governor of Ligor or Nakhon Si Thammarat who held the rank of Phraya. In 1811, Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah came into conflicts with his brother Tunku Bisnu. Tunku Bisnu approached Phraya Nakhon Noi of Ligor and sought Siamese support. Tunku Bisnu was then made the ruler of Setul. "

Not only was Kedah under Siamese rule, the Kedahan even helped to rogol other states.
Some historian would say Kedah is Siam's anjing.


This IIUM no teach real history ah? Or they drink lot of ketum and syabu same like Sanusi.




chrisweeks
post Nov 1 2021, 09:39 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
8 posts

Joined: Aug 2021
QUOTE(azarimy @ Nov 1 2021, 09:21 AM)
Sejarah books don't specifically introduce a specific word for it. It just used 'dikolonisasi' or 'menjadi koloni'.

My dad, who is a historian in Selangor, been talking about the difference between colonised and conquered since I was small. But this only came to the limelight recently. And he just sat back and said 'I told you so'.

But many historians still debating about this. Personally, I do agree that there's a difference between colonised and conquered. The conquered will have no political will, no governance, total assimilation to the conquering nation with their original identities suppressed.
*
so if not conquered then why celebrate merdeka?

Better cancel this waste of tax payer money then.


JimbeamofNRT
post Nov 1 2021, 09:42 AM

the Original Lanji@_ Chicken Rice Shop Since 2002
******
Senior Member
1,902 posts

Joined: Sep 2012

QUOTE(empyreal @ Nov 1 2021, 08:39 AM)
that's poor logic, of course you'd look at materials from other countries to contrast local materials. you cant say 'why didnt the british consult siam on penang?' when they did talk to siam years later on the entirety of kedah.

the best he could say is that kedah was a sovereign kingdom that was a vassal of siam, and argue the significance of tribute. tribute can be a recognition of the other's sovereignty over you, simply protection money, or in the unique system of china, a form of government trade (chinese emperor re-gifted more than what they receive, so kingdoms sent tributes often because its profitable).
*
best thing is, british dem smart to play on both side

kedah blockade 1838 - arms, ammunition and other stuff were smuggled by British merchants in Penang to the Kedah Sultan's army
frossonice
post Nov 1 2021, 09:42 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
337 posts

Joined: Jun 2008


QUOTE(azarimy @ Nov 1 2021, 09:32 AM)
That's the thing: The English don't use the word "conquered". They avoid using it. They believe in some form of parent-child relationship between them and the colonized countries. All commonwealth countries were under the British Empire, but we were not conquered. We were colonised.
*
That is also why some historian claim that some states in Malaysia were never conquered.

There is also a term in the proclaimation of indepedence that stated 'termination of agreements' between British and Malay rulers. Normally, no conquered land have agreements with the conqueror. So in this aspect, colonisation by British were not 'considered' as conquered.
shuttet
post Nov 1 2021, 09:43 AM

New Member
*
Newbie
0 posts

Joined: Aug 2015
From: Perak


user posted image

Buku sejarah during my Form 2 time also said "Kedah ditakluki oleh Siam", how? hmm.gif
dckm
post Nov 1 2021, 09:44 AM

New Member
*
Newbie
46 posts

Joined: Oct 2013


QUOTE(changejob @ Nov 1 2021, 09:27 AM)
We definitely didn't have political will or governance. Its all in the hands of the British. Maybe you can argue for Islamic matter yes, but that because the British didn't care for Islam (obviously).

As far for total assimilation, I think many countries in the world were conquered without total assimilation.

Because if you are arguing conquered = total assimilation, I think you can argue that British technically never conquered anyone. Even the Indians retained their identities.

Yet India were clearly under the British empire.
*
this tactic taken from the Romans or earlier. control the populace, but don't touch their religion, otherwise you'll get a rebellion very quickly.
kcchong2000
post Nov 1 2021, 09:48 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
189 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
And we here argue thanks to fatty at Kedah that can't find a single sen for their state, instead of finding solution, he create more problem
mushigen
post Nov 1 2021, 09:49 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,954 posts

Joined: Jul 2010


QUOTE(azarimy @ Nov 1 2021, 08:48 AM)
The word they used was 'tidak pernah dijajah'. This is semantics, because dijajah means conquered. And we were never conquered, per se. We were colonised.

Hence technically, you can see why they say 'tidak pernah dijajah'.
*
I remember my history lessons decades ago - the words used were penjajahan, dijajah, etc.

What is the Malay equivalent for "colonisation"?
SUSEBBattlefield
post Nov 1 2021, 09:49 AM

Ramadass Vijandren
****
Junior Member
637 posts

Joined: Nov 2018
From: Taman Sri Muda
QUOTE(dawnreaver @ Nov 1 2021, 08:49 AM)
Professor but doesn't know the meaning of vassal state or vassalage. Ask him to go play more Civilization. Phoondeck.
*
kennot.
indian nuke not yet nerf
cfa28
post Nov 1 2021, 09:54 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,830 posts

Joined: Jan 2012


QUOTE(chrisweeks @ Nov 1 2021, 09:39 AM)
so if not conquered then why celebrate merdeka?

Better cancel this waste of tax payer money then.
*
Also please withdraw from the Commonwealth Conference and Games
frossonice
post Nov 1 2021, 09:55 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
337 posts

Joined: Jun 2008


QUOTE(JimbeamofNRT @ Nov 1 2021, 09:34 AM)
Burney Treaty 1826 - The treaty acknowledged Siamese claims over the five northern Malay states of Kedah, Kelantan, Perlis, Terengganu—the future Unfederated Malay States—and Patani.
The treaty further guaranteed British possession of Penang and their rights to trade in Kelantan and Terengganu without Siamese interference.

Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 - Thailand relinquished its claims to sovereignty over Kedah ,Kelantan , Perlis and Terengganu

Article 1
The Siamese government transfers to the British government all rights of suzerainty, protection, administration and control whatsoever which they possess over the states of Kelantan, Tringganu, Kedah, Perlis, and adjacent islands. The frontiers of these territories are defined by the boundary protocol annexed hereto.
----

how lah this topkek fella can become professor?
*
As per the treaty said, "Acknowledged Siamese claims".

This was done without representation of the 5 Malay states.

British need only a guarantee for their expension without interference from Siam. They are not really interested in the legallity of it, whether it exist of not.
myasiahobby
post Nov 1 2021, 10:03 AM

On my way
****
Junior Member
693 posts

Joined: Dec 2009
From: Italy


Kedah only dijajah ford raptor
franstormer
post Nov 1 2021, 10:08 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
290 posts

Joined: May 2008


QUOTE(shuttet @ Nov 1 2021, 09:43 AM)
user posted image

Buku sejarah during my Form 2 time also said "Kedah ditakluki oleh Siam", how?  hmm.gif
*
later they question "siapa publisher buku, must be c*na yang buat hal trying to putar history" whistling.gif
JimbeamofNRT
post Nov 1 2021, 10:10 AM

the Original Lanji@_ Chicken Rice Shop Since 2002
******
Senior Member
1,902 posts

Joined: Sep 2012

QUOTE(frossonice @ Nov 1 2021, 09:55 AM)
As per the treaty said, "Acknowledged Siamese claims".

This was done without representation of the 5 Malay states.

British need only a guarantee for their expension without interference from Siam. They are not really interested in the legallity of it, whether it exist of not.
*
btw Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin, Sultan Kedah during that time was in exile @ Penang when it happened. he fleed during the 1821 war and was eventually restored to the Kedah Sultanate in 1842 under Siamese suzerainty


JustAskingOnly
post Nov 1 2021, 10:13 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
401 posts

Joined: Aug 2020
Last time whole of malaydia under malacca. So have pay malacca la..malacca king was parameswara from Indonesia. So have to ask Indonesia.
ahemdolah
post Nov 1 2021, 10:20 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
63 posts

Joined: Jan 2020
Shiok sendiri statement.

Dongzong and DAP only believe in Siam history textbooks, not your history book. 🤭
pgsiemkia
post Nov 1 2021, 10:26 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
473 posts

Joined: Dec 2009
From: Timbuktoo
QUOTE(empyreal @ Nov 1 2021, 08:39 AM)
that's poor logic, of course you'd look at materials from other countries to contrast local materials. you cant say 'why didnt the british consult siam on penang?' when they did talk to siam years later on the entirety of kedah.

the best he could say is that kedah was a sovereign kingdom that was a vassal of siam, and argue the significance of tribute. tribute can be a recognition of the other's sovereignty over you, simply protection money, or in the unique system of china, a form of government trade (chinese emperor re-gifted more than what they receive, so kingdoms sent tributes often because its profitable).
*
Vassal is correct..too bad most M’s command of English is not to that level yet, neither are their general knowledge capacity. No need to ask if pas is smart or just silo in what they know, kambing lagi pandai.


6 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > » Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0231sec    0.48    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 17th December 2025 - 05:42 PM