Pointers on historical sovereignty

SOME weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending, for the first time since 2010, the Raptor Watch organised by the Malaysian Nature Society at Tanjung Tuan, Port Dickson. It was a most educational day with the majestic birds being the highlight, closely followed by the mangrove plantations.

The Cape Rachado lighthouse provided a stunning view of the world’s busiest sea lane, high-tech gadgetry and historical nuggets. The latter became especially pertinent when, while ascending the staircase wearing my hat featuring the flag of Negri Sembilan, my friend remarked that I must be happy this event was happening “in your state”.

Alas, I had to correct him. Tanjung Tuan is not in Negri Sembilan; it is in Melaka, and the reason is the lighthouse. The Portuguese built it in 1528, and as Melaka came under Dutch rule in 1641 followed by the British in 1824, so did the lighthouse and the land. It remains the only exclave of a state being enclaved by another in Malaysia.

While Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya are enclaved by Selangor, the Federal Territories are technically not exclaves since they are political entities in their own right, although it can be counter-argued that all the Federal Territories are in a sense “exclaves of the Federal Government”.

I am bringing this matter up because of the issue of Penang “belonging to” Kedah, which has recently resurfaced. Perhaps no one talks about the case of Tanjung Tuan because there is incontrovertible evidence for its present status. Besides, the land area is small and not many people live there, hence there is no political incentive to say anything about it.

Conversely, there are perceived political benefits in claiming that Penang is part of Kedah. There is a lot of land (on both the peninsula and the island itself) and nearly two million people.

More importantly, the claim connects to ideas of historical sovereignty and the glory of classical Malay civilisation. And indeed, Kedah has a rich history with it being the site of Lembah Bujang, where ruins dating back over 2,500 years ago are located, and possibly being the first state to have a Muslim ruler, with the Malay Annals recording Sultan Mudzafar Shah as reigning in 1136.

The narrative of why and how Penang exists as a separate entity is not neat and tidy. Such is the history and politics of empire.

Written agreements and verbal promises between successive sultans of Kedah and representatives (sometimes self-appointed) of the East India Company and the British Crown have been much scrutinised to determine the legitimacy of transfers of administration and sovereignty. The institutions, policies and socioeconomic legacies emerged from these efforts.

Similar debates have transpired more fervently in other parts of the world, especially the Indian subcontinent and across Africa where the impact of colonialism was far more brutal and still endures. It is important that we, too, engage in such debates, both in academia and public life, to understand the impulses of imperialism (which, of course, still exists today in various guises), geopolitics and international relations.

However, there are established political realities. Whatever transpired in 1786 and since, by 1948, the political fact of Penang being a separate entity was recognised both domestically and internationally. The Prime Minister was right to reference the Federation of Malaya Agreements of 1948 and 1957. Both documents were signed by the Malay Rulers and the British government, and enabled the formation and independence of the Federation of Malaya on Aug 31, 1957, with entry into the United Nations on Sept 17, 1957.

While on this topic, it is pertinent to recall the United Nations Malaysia Mission of 1963, which was carried out to “ascertain the wishes of the population of Sarawak and North Borneo (Sabah) prior to the establishment of Malaysia”.

This mission was agreed among neighbouring countries precisely because of various experiences of governance and empire in those two territories (or regions, as we now call them), alongside the geopolitical context of the time with the fear of communism spreading in South-East Asia.

The conclusion was that “there is no doubt about the wishes of a sizeable majority of the peoples of these territories to join in the Federation of Malaysia”, as written by the UN secretary-general at the time, the Burmese diplomat U Thant.

Such are the vicissitudes of history, and whereas the raptors at Tanjung Tuan every year know which direction they are going by sheer biology, our politicians would do well to be more aware of history to keep us on a straight path.

Tunku Zain Al-‘Abidin is founding president of IDEAS. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.