QUOTE(Izzet @ Apr 29 2025, 08:29 AM)
The statement you shared, attributed to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and dated **29 April 2025**, reflects **strong political rhetoric and nationalist sentiment**, but several points require clarification or correction for historical and factual accuracy. Here's a breakdown:
---
### 1–3. **Historical claim about the Malay Peninsula**
- **True in general context**: The Malay Peninsula has long been inhabited and explored by ethnic Malays. Historically, the region was recognized as part of the broader "Malay World" (*Alam Melayu*), which included parts of what is now Malaysia, Indonesia, southern Thailand, and the Philippines.
- The reference to **Segenting Kra (Kra Isthmus)** and **Pulau Riau** reflects a broader definition of "Tanah Melayu" used in nationalist discourse, not formal political boundaries.
---
### 4. **“Now Peninsular Malaysia has decreased its area”**
- **Not accurate**: The borders of **Peninsular Malaysia** were not officially "decreased." The modern borders were established through colonial treaties and post-independence agreements. While certain regions with historical Malay populations (like Pattani or Riau) are outside Malaysia, they were never officially part of the **Federation of Malaya** or **Malaysia**.
---
### 5. **Loss of Pattani, Yala, Satun (Setoi), and Songkhla (Singgora) to Thailand**
- **Partially accurate**: These were part of the **Pattani Sultanate**, historically Malay Muslim regions. They were annexed by **Siam (Thailand)** over centuries, particularly solidified through the **Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909**, brokered by the British. So, they weren't "lost" by Malaysia, but rather **not included** in British Malaya.
---
### 6. **Loss of Riau Islands to Indonesia**
- **Not accurate in terms of Malaysian sovereignty**: The **Riau Archipelago** was part of the **Johor-Riau Sultanate**, which split in the 19th century. The islands became part of the **Dutch East Indies**, later Indonesia. Malaysia never officially controlled these islands.
---
### 7. **Singapore “lost” to Chinese immigrants**
- **Highly controversial**: Singapore was part of Malaysia from 1963–1965. It was **separated by mutual agreement** due to political and racial tensions. While Chinese Malaysians were the majority population, the statement implies a **racial blame** that is simplistic and divisive.
---
### 8–9. **Land “sold” by Malays**
- **Exaggerated and lacks nuance**: There is concern about land ownership shifts, especially urban real estate being sold to corporations or foreign buyers. However, land ownership is governed by **state laws**, and Malays benefit from policies like **Malay Reserved Land** and **Bumiputera quotas**. Saying "half has been sold" is **not supported by concrete data**.
---
### 10–11. **“Malays will live at the edge of the forest” / “no longer own land”**
- **Emotive and speculative**: This is **political rhetoric** rather than a fact. While urban land ownership patterns are shifting, the government maintains policies to protect Bumiputera interests.
---
### 12. **“What is the meaning of independence…”**
- **Political opinion**: This rhetorical question is meant to provoke thought on **economic sovereignty vs. political sovereignty**. It reflects Dr. Mahathir's long-standing concerns about **foreign influence and wealth distribution**, but it's not a statement of legal fact.
---
### Conclusion:
This message is **not a neutral historical record**, but a **politically charged opinion piece** likely aimed at stirring ethnic Malay nationalism. Some historical references are valid, but others are **oversimplified or distorted**. Always approach such statements with **critical thinking and fact-checking**.
Would you like a neutral, fact-based timeline of territorial changes involving Malaysia?
Apr 29 2025, 10:29 AM, updated 8 months ago
Quote
0.0370sec
0.42
6 queries
GZIP Disabled