JANUARY 23 — I would like to respond to the call made by individuals and political parties with regard to the standard six text book which had downplayed/denied the role played by Wong Pow Nee in the formation of Malaysia (in the Cobbold Commission). I would like to respond in my capacity as one of the Pakar Rujuk appointed by the Ministry of Education and as a Historian.
The Commission was a five-man Commission of Inquiry appointed to ascertain the views of the people of North Borneo (now Sabah) and Sarawak regarding the proposed Malaysian federation. It was headed by Lord Cobbold, a former governor of the Bank of England. Other members were Sir Anthony Abell, a former Governor of Sarawak, Sir David Watherston, a former Chief Secretary to the Government in Malaya and two representatives from the Federation of Malaya, Dato Wong Pow Nee, Chief Minister of Penang and Mohamed Ghazali Shafie, Permanent Secretary to the Department of External Affairs.
At the outset, let me state very frankly that the decision not to highlight Wong Pow Nee at the section on “Terima Kasih Pemimpin” has nothing to do with racial or political consideration. For this particular book, the Ministry had invited teachers and individuals from a number of NGOs to partake in the discussion pertaining to this and other matters to make sure there would not be any issue of contention. The members of the Chinese community had some reservation on certain issues, which we did our best to resolve, and interestingly this particular matter was never brought up. I attended all the meetings and we were accommodative to all matters that were raised, and to now accuse the Ministry of being racist is unfair.
It has to be noted that the book did acknowledge all the members of the committee, including Wong Pow Nee( page 4). A photograph of the Cobbold Commission members is included in the text. So the question of not according him due recognition doesn’t arise. The issue is why he is not recognized in the section under “Terima Kasih Pemimpin” (page 10). In this particular section, credit is given to the political players of all four territories, namely the Federation of Malaya (Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abul Razak), Singapore (Lee Kuan Yew), Sabah (Tuan Fuad Stephens, Tun Mustapha Harun), Sarawak (Stephen Kalong Ningkan, Tan Sri Ong Kee Hui and a civil servant — Tun Ghazalie Shafie. The writers were constrained by the limited documentation on Wong Pow Nee. They felt it safe and correct to highlight the political players from the four territories, as they represented the major building-blocks in the formation of Malaysia. Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie who was also known as King Ghaz on the other hand played a prominent role in working out the mechanics of the federation. It was he who brought the key players of the four states to the mediation table to make the formation of Malaysia a success story.
The authors have rightfully acknowledged Ghazali to be the main pemimpin tempatan, an interpretation that has come to be widely accepted following the publication, in the 1990s, of his Memoir on the Formation of Malaysia (Penerbit Universiti Kebangsan Malaysia 1998). Needless to say, it provided an excellent opportunity for Ghazali to highlight his role based on personal memories and documents from the Ministry which he was able to consult.
It has to be noted that existing literature has very limited information on Wong Pew Nee and it would not be wrong to say no Malaysian public would have known about Wong Pow Nee until this issue was highlighted by the media. In fact, the earlier textbooks (from the 90s) till present only mention his name in passing without clearly highlighting his real role in the commission. It also has to be noted that the existing literature on the Chinese in Malaysia by reknown scholars did not highlight his role in the formation of Malaysia. There are specific books which I would like to highlight — Lee Kam Hing and Tan Chee-Beng (2000), The Chinese in Malaya, Oxford University Press; Tan Teong Jin, Ho Wan Foon, Tan Joo Lan, The Chinese Malaysian Contribution ((2005), Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies; Voon Phin Keong, ed., (2007), Malaysian Chinese and Nation–Building , Centre for Malaysian Studies; Lee Kam Hing and Chow Mun Seong, Biographical Dictionary of the Chinese in Malaysia (2007), Pelanduk Publishers. The latter was supposed to have been a comprehensive biographical reference on Chinese personalities and their contributions to the nation — here too his name is nowhere to be seen. Given the situation as it stands, is it fair to blame the authors when the community itself had failed thus far to give him due recognition?
It is individuals outside the Chinese community who have sought to accord him some form of recognition. It is through the collaborative work by Rais Yatim and Prabhakaran S.Nair entitled “Tunku Still the Greatest Malaysian” (National Archives, 2012) that his son, Peter Wong Tet Phin had the first opportunity to write about his father and the latter’s relationship with Tunku. The chapter entitled “The Call and the Echo” makes a passing reference to Wong Pow Nee’s role in the commission. To quote, “Wong Pow Nee used to have fond memories of the interesting times spent with the rest of the Commission members when they visited Sarawak and North Borneo. They spent about twenty two months in these two territories, interviewing about 4,000 people and going over several thousand memoranda. They managed to convince a large number of people about the benefits of forming a new political entity. Wong Pow Nee and Ghazali Shafie reported to Tunku on the situation in the territories” (p. 64). Interestingly. Peter Wong went on to co-author a book on his father entitled “Unsung Patriot: Memoirs of Wong Pow Nee” (Bumblogger Connexion Marketers, 2014). Unfortunately, the book fails to provide concrete details relating to Wong Pow Nee’s contributions towards the formation of Malaysia. Needless to say, things would have been different had Wong Pow Nee himself written his memoir when he was alive and well.
When writers have limited resources, these are the kinds of interpretation one gets. I think it is high time for the MCA to get its own pool of researchers to work on Wong Pow Nee and have him recognized in Malaysian mainstream history. For this the researchers must look at the minutes of the meetings of the Commission which undertook its task from 19 February to 17 April 1962. It held 50 hearings at 35 different centres (20 in Sarawak and 15 in Sabah). Over 4,000 persons appeared before the Commission in some 690 groups. It also received nearly 600 letters and memoranda in Sabah and over 1,600 in Sarawak.
Let me assure the public that efforts are being taken to make Malaysian history as inclusive as possible to capture the contributions of the non-Malays to the nation. But this being a two-way process, let us work together to make this happen. To criticise the good work being done by the officials in the Ministry is unfair. Let us give recognition where it is due.
* Associate Professor Dr. Sivachandralingam Sundara Raja is the Head, Department of History, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, University of Malaya
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
