Ucapan Tun Sambanthan pada 1965, Apa yang kita boleh belajar?
Nak jadi cerita, tadi den ada ternampak ada orang share pautan hansad parlimen yang mengandungi ‘quote’ kata-kata Tun Sambanthan yang memuji dan mengangkat kepimpinan, kesudian, pemurah dan sifat bertimbang rasa orang Melayu dalam menerima kaum lain ke dalam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu pasca merdeka.
Maka den pun rajinkanlah diri untuk tengok dan baca keseluruhan ucapan Tun Sambanthan yang mengandungi ‘quote’ tersebut.
Bila den amati, rupanya-rupanya, ucapan itu adalah ucapan perbahasan Tun Sambathan terhadap usul ucapan Yang di-Pertuan Agong ketika itu..
Dan tema yang tengah panas dalam ucapan-ucapan perbahasan di parlimen ketika itu adalah isu Singapura nak keluar Malaysia, dan tuduhan Lee Kuan Yew ketika itu yang menuduh kononnya Tunku Abdul Rahman cuba ‘impose’ ‘Malay-Rule’ kepada Malaysia..
Maka den nak kongsikan beberapa poin penting ucapan tersebut kerana jujurnya bagi den banyak benda yang kita boleh ambil pengajaran daripada ucapan perbahasan tersebut.. panjang tapi berbaloi..
1. Sifat ‘megalomania’ Lee Kuan Yew yang mahu memisahkan beberapa negeri dari Persekutuan (Singapura,Melaka, Penang) kerana tidak mahu menerima pemerintahan orang Melayu.
“.. this morning when I scanned the paper, I asked myself this question: what sort of a man is this that can calmly and quietly propose the cutting up of our country; what megalomania is it that is driving him forth; and what is his fevered mind driving at? And, as I looked further, I found that he has one reason for suggesting that this country should be cut up, and that is that he is against Malay rule here Malay rule in Malay-sia. Before accepting his definition, let us for a moment go back into the past..”
2. Sebelum merdeka, orang Melayu memegang 88% kuasa mengundi, tetapi 40% kerusi telah diberikan oleh kepimpinan Melayu kepada bukan Melayu secara besar hati dan di atas semangat setiakawan.
“.. When one looked at the electorate at that time, one observed that 4% of the electorate was Indian, 8% was Chinese and 88% was Malay.
Now, there were 52 seats to be contested at that time. Yet, how were the seats allocated? Roughly 40% of the seats were allocated to the non-Malays and, mark you, at that occasion, because of the large majority of Malay voters barring one consti-tuency, I think, all the others had Malay majority. And so, if anybody wanted to stand up for the elections at that time and win, he had to have the Malay electorate with him.
88% of the Malay electorate what does it mean?
It means that politically the Malays were really powerful. It also means that even though they were so power-ful, the leadership of the UMNO com-prising mainly of the Tunku, Tun Razak, Dr Ismail and others felt that they had to be large hearted enough to concede to fellow races, brother races in this country, a larger measure of seats than their numbers warranted, and so we had it. ..”
3. Tun Sambanthan sendiri, bertanding di kawasan orang Melayu dan orang Melayu sendiri berkempen untuk beliau dari kampung ke kampung siap naik sampan untuk beliau dan bagaimana orang Melayu di didik untuk tidak mengundi berdasarkan warna kulit ketika itu.
“..I was one of those in 1955 who had the good fortune of having been chosen to stand for elections. At that time, in my own constituency, the majority of the voters were Malays. Two of my opponents were Malays, locally based, men of good reputation. One of them, strangely enough, was the present Speaker of the House.
However, the Malay people in the kampongs were told of the objectives that we had, of the necessity for us to be non-racial in our outlook, of the need for them to vote for the policy, the policy of free-dom and all the consequential improve-ments that the country would have because of freedom; and so it was in many of the other constituencies.
The Malay kampong folk came out in thousands, and they voted us in. Around that time, one of the men who’ had to go from village to village, kampong to kampong, wading in water, going by boat, living in the jungle, sometimes at the threat of being shot by Malay extremists, is one who is today being branded by the P.A.P. character assassinators, as ultra racialist.
I refer to no less a man than Tuan Syed Ja`afar Albar. (Applause ^ Tuan Syed Ja`af ar Albar at that time had avery important task of going from village to village to tell the Malays,” This is not the right thing, we have got to think of Malaya, we have got to think of the people as one, we cannot say that Malays should vote for Malays, we should vote for anybody, whomever the party puts in and we should vote on non-racial lines..”
4. Walaupun orang Melayu mempunyai 88% undi mereka masih terbuka untuk menerima kaum-kaum lain ke dalam Tanah Melayu walaupun ketika itu ditempat lain tidak sebegitu..
“..what did the Malay leadership do? They had 88%
of the electorate still with them. What did they do with citizenship?
If we look around in Asia and in East Asia, particularly, you will find that my race, the Indian race, is not welcomed in Ceylon, is not welcomed in Burma. Look at my brother Chinese race, it is not welcomed in Thailand, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in all the other areas.
What help do they get for citizenship in all these territories?
In Burma, as we know, Indians have been sent pack-ing, in Ceylon they refused them citizenship and in Burma it is likewise. I know it, you know it. And yet in Malaya what happened? Here, we found that the Malay leadership said, “We shall take them unto ourselves as brothers, we shall give; them full oppor-tunity to live in this country, we shall give them every opportunity to’ become citizens.”
And so, in 1957, for the whole year, we waived language qualifications, and tens of thousands of Indians, Chinese, Ceylonese and others became citizens. Why did the Malays do’ this? Is it to propitiate Malay rule in this country? Is it to keep themselves al lthe time in power that they watered down their own authority?
It would be stupid, utterly stupid, for them to’ do.that, if they wanted to’ control this country for all time. They could have done it by the simple expedient that one observed in Ceylon, Burma and other countries deny the opportunity of citizenship to’ these people. They can never take this country from you. Then why did they do it and are these the people today who’ are trying to foist Malay rule?..”
5. Orang Melayu adalah kaum yang terbuka, sopan dan terhormat walaupun adalah kaum yang termiskin ketika itu..
“..In all my life I haven’t seen such mendacity as that put in by Mr Lee Kuan Yew of the P.A.P. (Applause). Such vicious, utterly vicious mendacity against a race with whom it is our great fortune to live. A race who have throughout their time have been hospitable, been polite, been respect-able and yet this race, believe me, is the poorest in this country. The other races have come here, they are by far richer.
Even my own race, mostly made up of labourers today have a monthly earning much better than the ordinary kampong dweller; I know it. The towns who owns the towns in our country? Who owns the cities? Who owns the estates? Do the Malays own these? Then what is it that we are trying to shout at them for? This infact, Mr Speaker, is the essence of the whole question. We have got to recog-nise this fundamental fact..”
6. Bagaimana orang-orang Melayu ‘watered down’ kuasa politik mereka dalam menerima kaum-kaum lain sebagai saudaranya atas semangat moral, etika dan kemanusiaan yang tinggi..
“..In 1957, I said, in the whole year, hundreds of thousands of non-Malays became citizens, by a voluntary act. By a voluntary act the Malay leadership itself watered down their own political power. Can you see it anywhere else? Even the huge nations of the West the United States.
Can 100,000 Malay-sians go to the United States tomorrow and become citizens there? Could you do it in Germany, in Turkey, in Albania, in Russia, or in any part of the world, I ask. The answer is “No”. In the United States they have got a quota, in Australia you cannot put your footdown and step into it, and yet here, we find the course of history changed. A different pattern -a different pattern of brotherhood, of understanding, of goodwill-a different pattern based upon morals, ethics; -a good decent, humanistic pattern. And so in 1957, we had freedom. We had more and more become citizens…”
7. Tidak wujud retorik, cliche ‘Malayan Malayan’.
“..This one country was an oasis of happiness, of a happy people living together, not asking themselves, “Am Ia Malayan Malayan?” They were all Malayans. There was no question oftheir being anybody else. They were all together as one. Nobody came around with any cliches those days. We all felt we were Malayans; we lived as Malayans..”
8. Lee Kuan Yew yang sebenarnya ‘desperate’ join Malaya kerana PAP terpecah dua..dan ambik kesempatan atas kelembutan dan sifat baik hati Tunku.
“..That was their thinking in 1960. But when the Barisan party came up and the P.A.P. broke up, mark you, not because all of them were Communists and that is what Mr Lee Kuan Yew wants us to believe, but I don’t believe it. It was a clash of personalities. They just could not stand up to this man’s arrogance. It was just that, and so the party had to break up.
Then what happened?
A Lim Yew Hock had to come in to keep that party in power,or it would have been thrown out. That was the situation. A Lim Yew Hock, alone man had to throw his vote to keep that party going. Then they thought of something. “Ah, there is Kuala Lumpur, a monolithic, powerful, strong Govern-ment there and a mild, kind heartedman who is the Prime Minister there; may be, he will agree; may be, I can run to him for succour.” Which, in fact,was what he did..”
9. Bagaimana Lee Kuan Yew dari mula lagi ‘busuk hati’ dan bermuka-muka apabila telah ‘di selamatkan’ oleh Tunku..
“..Then we had the Malaysia Agree-ment signed in London. No sooner was this Agreement signed and the ink was hardly dry, a meeting of students by Mr Lee was held in England. At this meeting Mr Lee, who likes to say that he wants to analyse in public, went to the students and said, “You know, I cannot become the Prime Minister simply because there is an army and you know who is the chief of it?”
The insinuation being that Tunku’s nephew was the chief of the army and, there-fore, he would prevent anybody else from becoming the Prime Minister. Mr Lee spoke about this hardly before the ink had dried on the Malaysia Agreement.
..,stage by stage, we found conditions changing.
Around the time of referendum, the Singapore Ministers would go round and say, “We are all Malaysians”. But after the referendum and the second elections, they said, “Oh, we are Singaporeans. Singapore shall show Malaysia.” So you can see how Malaysian Malaysians become Singa-pore Malaysians sometimes. So, this ding-dong has been going on..”
10. Lee Kuan Yew, PAP pernah mengatakan bahawa orang Melayu juga adalah imigran seperti kaum-kaum yang lain dan pernah meminta pemisahan Singapura, Penang dan Melaka..
“.. why should this great gentleman come in and say, “Oh, the Malays here are as much immigrant as anybody
Surely that, excuse me Mr Speaker, Sir, is beyond the realm of stupidity, because that is precisely what
it is. No leader of any reputation would try to rouse communal feelings,and this is precisely what he is trying to do.
.. In his megalomania he tells us to break up this country into Malacca, Penang, Singapore and other places. Can we live like that? What madness is this; what utter, absolute and complete madness is this? Surely we in this country will never permit such madness to rule this country..”
11. ‘Multiracial’ parti tidak semestinya tidak perkauman, itu kata Tun Sambanthan..
“..Simply because a party has got as its primary membership Chinese, Malays and Indians, it does not mean that it is non-communal, when every word they mouth is communal. Every time the Member for Ipoh opens his mouth, itis communal.
Everybody knows that. I know in my own constituency his party tried to do a fantastic trick. They went to the Malays and said, “You know the Chinese are squeezing the blood out of you”; and they went to the Chinese and said, “You know, the Malays are taking all the land away from you” the same party, the same constituency, different villages. That is a non communal party according to the P.A.P..”
12. Sifat rendah diri Tun Sambanthan yang mengakui sifat orang Melayu yang murah hati, sopan dan kaum yang segak perkertinya..
“..As I said, it has been my great good fortune to have been born in this country. Where else can you find a more charitable, a more polite, a more decent race than the Malay race?
Where else can you get such politically decent treatment for any immigrant race? Where else in the history of the world?..”
Sebagai kesimpulannya, ucapan Tun Sambanthan ini telah betul-betul menyentuh jiwa den, keikhlasan dan kejujuran yang terkandung dalam setiap bait-bait kata Tun Sambanthan terasa berbekas di hati den.
Keindahan dan kerendahan hati Tun jelas digambarkan dalam pemilihan perkataan dan gambaran mengenai orang Melayu yang telah diberikan Tun dalam ucapan tersebut..
A perfect potrayal of a True and Real Statesman as I may say..
Sesungguhnya, jauh sekali ‘level’ ucapan Tun Sambanthan dengan para MP kita di parlimen hari ini yang banyaknya lebih kepada retorika politik sempit.
Lagi-lagi kalau dibandingkan dengan Yb dari Jelutong..
Sebabnya hanya dari sebuah ucapan, kita boleh rasa roh semangat setiakawan yang telah terjalin diantara pemimpin-pemimpin dahulu..
Sebuah ucapan yang jika kita hayati, lain macam perginya, merentasi zaman pun masih terasa auranya..bercampur baur, sebak, terharu, tersentuh semua ada..
Mungkin inilah yang orang puteh kata, “Gold standards”..
*Nota Kaki: Ucapan Tun Sambanthan adalah pada 1Jun 1965, Singapura umum dikeluarkan dari Malaysia pada 7 Ogos 1965, dengan undian menyokong di Parlimen 126-0