RESPONDING TO AN OPEN LETTER
WHAT HISTORY REVAMP?
Kuala Lumpur, 10 Jan 2023
An ‘Open Letter’ to the prime minister was published in a portal, Malaysiakini, on 1 Jan 2023. The writer of the letter expressed happiness the prime minister is embarking on building a “New Malaysia”, and urged the prime minister to “revamp” the school history textbooks, for many reasons he cited.
In the history of our land (meaning the Malay Peninsula, and the territories of Sabah and Sarawak) there had never been a practice or psyche of directing history (directing what should go into the school history textbooks), although shifts in the writings have occurred, as the land exited the period of the British interregnum, a shift away from British perspectives and orientation.
Unlike the land of China and of India, where according to media report in January 2017, China’s government ordered all Chinese history textbooks be rewritten to extend the Sino-Japanese war by six years (from 1931, instead of 1937 to 1945), so as to present a greater communist party’s contribution in the war. (And, there are parties in Malaysia too who want the same done here, to devote pages for the supposed contributions of the communist party of Malaya in the war against the Japanese here, and in the efforts to gain the country’s independence).
According to media report too, in March 2018, the Bharatiya Janata Party government in India ordered a complete rewriting of India’s history, that would then depict “India's Muslim rulers as barbarous invaders and the medieval period as a dark age of Islamic colonial rule which snuffed out the glories of the Hindu empire that preceded it”.
In our land here, are we now to get the prime minister to go the path of Beijing’s and New Delhi’s too?
The Malays and other native populations of our land, whether in government or in their societies at large, do have a sense of the history of their land, as of other matters of their tanah air, culture and civilisation. And, their history has been related the way they see the essence of their historical events and episodes. There just can’t be any thought of “revamping our history”, as New Delhi or Beijing have done to theirs.
Is there anything wrong with our history the way it has been related in Malaysia? There may be some errors or shortcomings, but the main thrusts of our historical narratives have been true to the natives’ appreciation of the essences of events (which is what history is about : ‘events and episodes’, and the ‘essences’ of them; the two ‘E’s). Remember, when we talk of ‘history’ we are talking of ‘History’ with the big ‘H’, meaning “National History”. Not, history with a small ‘h’, like the history of the Sikhs in Malaysia, or the history of tin mines in Malaysia.
All these while (before some non Malays, of late, started questioning the narration of the history of this land), the history of Tanah Melayu (Malaya) and Sabah and Sarawak, has been interpreted the way the natives sensed it. Anything wrong with that?
Professor of History at the University of Malaya in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, K. G. Tregonning, who wrote “A History of Modern Malaya’, published in 1964 in the early days of the independence of Malaya and Malaysia understood the fact very well, and wrote in that book, that ‘there is only one way to write the history of Malaya, and that is by viewing it from the perspective of the natives’.
Which does not mean, however, that only Malays would be qualified to write the history of Malaya or Malaysia. What Professor Tregonning was establishing was that the sense of the land, its spirit, its soul, its culture and values, its ways, can only be felt by the natives, and events and episodes (i.e. history) are understood accordingly, and thus narrated in writing or orally with that feeling of the people of the tanah tumpah darah.
Non Malays would be fully qualified to write the history of the Malay Peninsula (Malaya) if they have immersed themselves fully in the Malay society, and would sense and feel what the native Malays do. Incidentally, this is what really is the meaning of integration with the (native) people and the land, and of becoming ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian”.
Unfortunately, a vast majority of non Malays especially in the Peninsula take the stance of refusing to integrate, indicated clearly by refusing to recognise that the Malays are the natives here, refusing to uphold totally Malay as the national language, and Malay culture as the native culture, refusing to recognise the existence of a Malay World, and deciding to call Malaysia a multiracial, multicultural country, instead of recognising that Tanah Melayu/ Malaysia is a Malay country, being a country in and of the Malay World.
Thus, that kind of separateness of the vast majority of the non Malays from the Malays, is the source of the sad estrangement in the matter of the history of Malaysia today, and the rise of what amount to perverse criticisms of the narration of the history of this land, such as demanding that Malaysia’s history should not be ‘Malay-centric’.
If there had been meaningful integration those non Malays would have had the right sense of the history of the land here, as they would have absorbed the essence of the land.
What non Malays need to understand is that history is about the narrative of a civilisation in its homeland. And, here it is definitely about the Malay civilisation, its people, and their homeland. Thus, the history here is naturally and definitely Malay centric. There is no mixed civilisation here. Being ‘Malay centric’ is at the core of the open letter’s criticisms of the history of the land.
Non Malays need to appreciate when their forefathers came to the Malay World 200 years ago, and then decided to live in Malaya for good, they left China and the Chinese civilisation, or India and the Indian civilisation for good. They were then no longer part of those civilisations and their history. They were really in a state of the end of history, here in Malaya.
In the new land here, they had a choice of either to stay in a state of the end of history, or join/be part of the history of the Malay civilisation here; but, always mindful that the ongoing history of the Malay civilisation here will be as narrated by the natives here - as it has always been. It would not be right for the non Malays to demand that the historical narrative of Malaya and now Malaysia be changed to a way the non Malays like it to be.
The right attitude would be for those non Malays to learn everything about the Malays (and other natives in Malaysia), their civilisations, their cultures, their values, their language, their ways here, as these are clearly the national identity - that original identity of the land. The error started when those non Malays from the beginning chose the path of refusing to recognise everything they found here instead. They refused to accept they are in the Malay World and all that implies (recognition of the Malay language, Malay culture, Malay values, and Malay history (by ‘Malay’ here is meant the other natives too). Those non Malays chose to challenge all the native matters here instead, including the narration of history here.
The complaints about Malaysia’s history serialised by the writer in his Open letter are simply expanded from his core argument that Malaysia’s history as is narrated is Malay centric. The writer argues then that Malaysia’s history is thus being ‘untruthful’, that ‘denies the existence of multiple ethnics, cultures and religions in Malaysia’, as well as ‘marginalising the presence and contributions of the Chinese and Indians’ here; and, finally all these are alleged to be the design of a “divisive agenda of ethnonationalism”.
The writer thus calls on the prime minister to direct a revamping in the writing of Malaysia’s history.
Why should Malaysia’s history not be Malay centric? We are in the Malay World. Malaysia is a country in the Malay World, and of the Malay World. A world with its own native civilisation centuries before Chinese, Indians, Europeans arrived here.
Why should anyone ever think that the history of Malaya/Malaysia needs to be “revamped”; which supposedly would mean the ‘Malay content’ of the history be drastically reduced, because non Malays have become citizens here. Why ought the newer populations of the land have a ‘veto right’ on the narration of the land’s history.
Anybody can write A history of Malaysia obviously, including non Malays and foreigners. A Britisher may write A History of New Zealand for instance, but THE History of New Zealand can only come from the perspective of the native Maoris. Only a Malay/native perspective would narrate THE History of Malaysia, not a Japanese, or an unintegrated non Malay perspective.
Thus, many of those tedious complaints about the writing of Malaysia’s history are, if critically examined, unmerited.
Our history is accused of being ‘not inclusive’, ‘not truthful’, and ‘not actually accurate’. Are Malays a deceitful people? How much have the non Malays known or understood the Malays as a people.
A good test would be the phrase “ketuanan Melayu”. Almost without fail non Malays use the phrase to mean (and, supposedly malays do mean it so) “Malay supremacy” or “Malay Supremacism”. Firstly, in international scholarly understanding, “racial supremacy” and “racial supremacists” mean a belief in the superiority of one’s race. Has anybody found such expressions or claims of racial supremacy in Malay pronouncements, past or present?
Unfortunately, scholars and journalists, local and international alike, have never subjected the equating of “ketuanan Melayu” with racial supremacism to critical examination. In fact, lots of other accusations against Malays, as with the history of this Malay land, have never been critically scrutinised, thus building up a situation whereby the Malay or anything Malay is seen and interpreted as untruths, complots, conspiracies, and evils.
Ketuanan Melayu is alleged to be a “divisive … mindset”. Why should that be so?
The country does not impose ketuanan Melayu over the non Malays. Ketuanan Melayu has always been with the land as a Malay consciousness and certainty (that this is Tanah Melayu and Alam Melayu) even before the arrivals of Chinese and Indians to this land 200 years ago. If non Malays had sought to learn/know the people and the land here better, they would have discovered the fact of ketuanan Melayu here a long time ago. Ketuanan Melayu is the very essence of the land itself, its very history.
Ketuanan Melayu was not invented in the 1960’s or 1970’s, as a ‘political tool’ as commonly alleged, or a ‘mindset’ (attitudes) as commonly assumed, to impose on the Chinese and Indians from the 1960’s or 1970’s here, although the phrase ketuanan Melayu may be recent. Just as Bahasa Melayu did not come into being here only from the 1600’s when the language began to appear in written form; the Malay language has been here many many centuries well before that, as not just a spoken language, but also a regional lingua franca.
On the matter of inclusiveness, haven’t the Malay led governments been inclusive since the start, even in the composition of the government itself right from the start, offering more parliamentary seats to the non Malays in general elections, more than there were non Malay constituencies. Has not our history narrative been inclusive enough; what amount of inclusiveness is considered enough by non Malays. Obviously, Malays would not accede to an inclusiveness demand that would dilute the historical Malayness of the land.
And, the allegation goes that history writing in Malaysia is directed by a “divisive agenda of ethnonationalism”. How does one respond to such word salad? How about saying the incessant criticisms of Malaysian history show an “unabated group chauvinism and aggression” intent on hacking and hijacking the history of Malaya and Malaysia, to erase it of its Malayness, and to place the Malays not far removed from being a de-historicised people.
Finally, encouraging the prime minister to build a “Malaysia for Malaysians” (a “New Malaysia”) as in the Open letter.
Here, we need a very englightened understanding of identities in Malaya and Malaysia, the outlines of which have been discernible since the end of the Japanese occupation of Malaya in 1945, in particular. This is what knowing the land, that is called Tanah Melayu (or, the badly
anglicised ‘Malaya’), and its people is about. And, also knowing Malaysia as the land and its people is about. The intricacies of identity in Malaya and Malaysia in its history.
See, for Malays particularly in Malaya, being called ‘Malayan’ was/is an ‘alien’ experience, very much felt in the 1940’s and 1950’s. As, far as the Malays were concerned they were Melayu (whether as the population of a Malay state, or the population of the Malay Federation i.e. Malaya). And, if one understands it, this is very close to appreciating the Malay sense of tanah air, tanah tumpah darahku. And, that sense is still here with us in Malaya/Tanah Melayu, and Malaysia.
Only the non Malays were known/became to be called ‘Malayans’ in the Peninsula, in a hopeful effort to wean them off their Chinese/China, and Indian/India identity in the Peninsula - i.e. founding a new identity.
For the Malays in Tanah Melayu and in Malaysia their identity is wholly and will always remain Melayu; there is no other identity that they possessed that needed to be weaned off. Thus, today don’t ask any Malay whether he is ‘Malay first’ or ‘Malayan first’ or ‘Malaysian first’. He is just, only and simply Melayu. Being ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ has almost a hollow meaning to him, other than its simple necessity as an identity in international travels and interactions, a very formal identity. And, where in his identity card he is ‘Melayu’ is a very important, historical statement to him; if non Malays do not want their ethnic identity to be recorded in their identity card, or any other official documents, that is up to them, but they cannot demand the Malay has to drop his ‘Melayu’ identity too, or to drop the name Tanah Melayu.
For Chinese and Indians in Malaya and Malaysia, being/recognised as ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ carries a very important statement, and one that bestows an important value. They cannot afford to be ‘Chinese first’ or ‘Indian first’, as that conveys the meaning that their essential and primary identification is with China or India. So, it does make sense to ask them today if they are ‘Malaysian first’, or not. And, it would be very good for them to declare that they are ‘Malaysian first’, or for short they are ‘Malaysians’. The identity ‘Chinese’ or ‘Indian’ is ‘troublesome’.
But, to ask a Malay if he is ‘Malay first’ or ‘Malayan first’ or ‘Malaysian first’, is plain rudeness. He is definitely ‘Melayu first’ (unnecessary at all for him to declare himself ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’), and always; his Melayu does not point to an identification with any foreign countries or land, but an identification with a whole Alam Melayu - the Kepulauan Melayu (Malay Archipelago). Being Melayu means the man of the Archipelago. And, he is here.
What riles the Malay from the 1946 ‘Malayan’ days is the expectation by non Malays that the Malay must accept the ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ identity as his true and real ethnic identity too, and get rid of his Melayu identity.
It is in our history that in the effort to obtain merdeka from the British in the 1940’s, to be ‘Malayan’ was supposed to signal one’s (the non Malay) identification with the land, and therefore entitlement to citizenship.
To the British who were preparing to leave Tanah Melayu, Malayans were the non Malays who would be ‘malayanising’ themselves after they obtained their citizenship of Malaya; and,
by ‘malayanising’ the British meant absolutely conforming to “the ways of the land”; not, however meaning having to become Malays or muslims.
Did that ‘malayanising’ actually happen as per British expectation? Tunku Abdul Rahman , who assumed leadership of the Malays in seeking to obtain merdeka, succeeding Onn Jaafar in 1951, placed the compelling query “who are these ‘Malayans”?
Similarly, with Malaysia, has ‘malaysianising’ as per the British expectation in Malaya been achieved?
If the Malayanising and Malaysianising have not meaningfully taken place, then who are these ‘Malayans’ and the ‘Malaysians’? Are they Malayans or Malaysians by formality (carrying Malaysian passports, possessing Malaysian identity cards) alone, or in real meaningful essence - not necessarily in the absolute essence.
Thus, the call for “Malaysia for Malaysians” needs to be scrutinised. Does ‘Malaysians’ here mean non Malays who ‘Malaysianised’ (as per the British expectation with regard to Malaya in our history); or, also non Malays who have not ‘Malaysianised’ too; or simply the non Malays, totally. Because, the Malays do not need the term ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ to establish their local identity, and all that entails.
Let us see.
In certain national argumentations, the phrase “Malaysian Agenda”, often crops up as the ‘noble’ agenda to upstage what has been called derogatively as the “Malay Agenda”, which is described as vile, ‘racist’ (which are normal epithets reserved for anything Malay), one alleged by non Malays as a “divisive agenda of ethnonationalism”.
Now, If one peruses the items and argumentations in the “Malaysian Agenda” (which are claimed to be totally non racial), and there have been articles written about these, one will find the items are all what non Malays want; absolutely no items that cater for Malay and native legitimate concerns.
Thus, the phrase “Malaysia for Malaysians” (or, “Malaysian Malaysia”) is eerily a “Non Malay Agenda” - really. Not, a truly, un-racial national agenda it is claimed to be. The phrases “Malaysia for Malaysians” and “Malaysian Malaysia” are not just deceptive, but also divisive and destructive. Because themes like ‘equality’, ‘meritocracy’, ‘fairness’, ‘justice’, ‘freedom’, ‘competition’, etc. that fully inhabit the so called “Malaysian Agenda”, fully pursued would lead to the outcome of Malays and other natives here cast to the margins of society, as what has fully happened to all the natives in South American countries today, as an example.
On the other hand, what has derisively been called the “Malay Agenda” is a government policy clearly spelled out to put a special effort (derisively called ‘racial discrimination’ by most non Malays, and many foreigners too) to raise the economic and educational positions of the Malays and other natives, who are far behind the non Malays in these areas; while the government does not abandon the ‘legitimate interests of other communities’ (the phrase that is in the country’s constitution), meaning the non Malays.
It is unfortunate that people who commonly write on Malaysian affairs have never taken a critical approach in their appreciation of the various allegations and criticisms made about Malaysia, and the Malays.
The great truly Malayan/Malaysian Document has always been the Malaysian Constitution (founded on the original constitution of Malaya) where the interests of all are recorded, in the phrase “the special position of the Malays and other natives, and the legitimate interests of other communities”. And, it would not be wrong to claim that the much maligned so called ‘Malay Agenda’ is close in spirit and content to the national objective, but the same cannot be said for the much vaunted “Malaysian Agenda”.
Thus, in criticising the contents of history text books in Malaysia, one is well advised to understand the intricacies of identity in Malaysia, and the big picture of history in the land. The contents of the textbooks are not a stand-alone item, totally detached and alien from the big History, one with the big ‘H’.
It is disrespectful to the land and its founding people, for anyone to be calling for a “revamp” of the history of the land. Our National History narrative is largely on the right track. And, it is not one to be determined by the government of the day, but by the senses of the natives, as anywhere else in the world, with the major exceptions of India and China as mentioned earlier.
Malaysia should never be like China or India, where history is revamped from time to time, ordered by strong men in the capital city. That is not our way.
Not here.
Arof Ishak
An ‘Open Letter’ to the prime minister was published in a portal, Malaysiakini, on 1 Jan 2023. The writer of the letter expressed happiness the prime minister is embarking on building a “New Malaysia”, and urged the prime minister to “revamp” the school history textbooks, for many reasons he cited.
In the history of our land (meaning the Malay Peninsula, and the territories of Sabah and Sarawak) there had never been a practice or psyche of directing history (directing what should go into the school history textbooks), although shifts in the writings have occurred, as the land exited the period of the British interregnum, a shift away from British perspectives and orientation.
Unlike the land of China and of India, where according to media report in January 2017, China’s government ordered all Chinese history textbooks be rewritten to extend the Sino-Japanese war by six years (from 1931, instead of 1937 to 1945), so as to present a greater communist party’s contribution in the war. (And, there are parties in Malaysia too who want the same done here, to devote pages for the supposed contributions of the communist party of Malaya in the war against the Japanese here, and in the efforts to gain the country’s independence).
According to media report too, in March 2018, the Bharatiya Janata Party government in India ordered a complete rewriting of India’s history, that would then depict “India's Muslim rulers as barbarous invaders and the medieval period as a dark age of Islamic colonial rule which snuffed out the glories of the Hindu empire that preceded it”.
In our land here, are we now to get the prime minister to go the path of Beijing’s and New Delhi’s too?
The Malays and other native populations of our land, whether in government or in their societies at large, do have a sense of the history of their land, as of other matters of their tanah air, culture and civilisation. And, their history has been related the way they see the essence of their historical events and episodes. There just can’t be any thought of “revamping our history”, as New Delhi or Beijing have done to theirs.
Is there anything wrong with our history the way it has been related in Malaysia? There may be some errors or shortcomings, but the main thrusts of our historical narratives have been true to the natives’ appreciation of the essences of events (which is what history is about : ‘events and episodes’, and the ‘essences’ of them; the two ‘E’s). Remember, when we talk of ‘history’ we are talking of ‘History’ with the big ‘H’, meaning “National History”. Not, history with a small ‘h’, like the history of the Sikhs in Malaysia, or the history of tin mines in Malaysia.
All these while (before some non Malays, of late, started questioning the narration of the history of this land), the history of Tanah Melayu (Malaya) and Sabah and Sarawak, has been interpreted the way the natives sensed it. Anything wrong with that?
Professor of History at the University of Malaya in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, K. G. Tregonning, who wrote “A History of Modern Malaya’, published in 1964 in the early days of the independence of Malaya and Malaysia understood the fact very well, and wrote in that book, that ‘there is only one way to write the history of Malaya, and that is by viewing it from the perspective of the natives’.
Which does not mean, however, that only Malays would be qualified to write the history of Malaya or Malaysia. What Professor Tregonning was establishing was that the sense of the land, its spirit, its soul, its culture and values, its ways, can only be felt by the natives, and events and episodes (i.e. history) are understood accordingly, and thus narrated in writing or orally with that feeling of the people of the tanah tumpah darah.
Non Malays would be fully qualified to write the history of the Malay Peninsula (Malaya) if they have immersed themselves fully in the Malay society, and would sense and feel what the native Malays do. Incidentally, this is what really is the meaning of integration with the (native) people and the land, and of becoming ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian”.
Unfortunately, a vast majority of non Malays especially in the Peninsula take the stance of refusing to integrate, indicated clearly by refusing to recognise that the Malays are the natives here, refusing to uphold totally Malay as the national language, and Malay culture as the native culture, refusing to recognise the existence of a Malay World, and deciding to call Malaysia a multiracial, multicultural country, instead of recognising that Tanah Melayu/ Malaysia is a Malay country, being a country in and of the Malay World.
Thus, that kind of separateness of the vast majority of the non Malays from the Malays, is the source of the sad estrangement in the matter of the history of Malaysia today, and the rise of what amount to perverse criticisms of the narration of the history of this land, such as demanding that Malaysia’s history should not be ‘Malay-centric’.
If there had been meaningful integration those non Malays would have had the right sense of the history of the land here, as they would have absorbed the essence of the land.
What non Malays need to understand is that history is about the narrative of a civilisation in its homeland. And, here it is definitely about the Malay civilisation, its people, and their homeland. Thus, the history here is naturally and definitely Malay centric. There is no mixed civilisation here. Being ‘Malay centric’ is at the core of the open letter’s criticisms of the history of the land.
Non Malays need to appreciate when their forefathers came to the Malay World 200 years ago, and then decided to live in Malaya for good, they left China and the Chinese civilisation, or India and the Indian civilisation for good. They were then no longer part of those civilisations and their history. They were really in a state of the end of history, here in Malaya.
In the new land here, they had a choice of either to stay in a state of the end of history, or join/be part of the history of the Malay civilisation here; but, always mindful that the ongoing history of the Malay civilisation here will be as narrated by the natives here - as it has always been. It would not be right for the non Malays to demand that the historical narrative of Malaya and now Malaysia be changed to a way the non Malays like it to be.
The right attitude would be for those non Malays to learn everything about the Malays (and other natives in Malaysia), their civilisations, their cultures, their values, their language, their ways here, as these are clearly the national identity - that original identity of the land. The error started when those non Malays from the beginning chose the path of refusing to recognise everything they found here instead. They refused to accept they are in the Malay World and all that implies (recognition of the Malay language, Malay culture, Malay values, and Malay history (by ‘Malay’ here is meant the other natives too). Those non Malays chose to challenge all the native matters here instead, including the narration of history here.
The complaints about Malaysia’s history serialised by the writer in his Open letter are simply expanded from his core argument that Malaysia’s history as is narrated is Malay centric. The writer argues then that Malaysia’s history is thus being ‘untruthful’, that ‘denies the existence of multiple ethnics, cultures and religions in Malaysia’, as well as ‘marginalising the presence and contributions of the Chinese and Indians’ here; and, finally all these are alleged to be the design of a “divisive agenda of ethnonationalism”.
The writer thus calls on the prime minister to direct a revamping in the writing of Malaysia’s history.
Why should Malaysia’s history not be Malay centric? We are in the Malay World. Malaysia is a country in the Malay World, and of the Malay World. A world with its own native civilisation centuries before Chinese, Indians, Europeans arrived here.
Why should anyone ever think that the history of Malaya/Malaysia needs to be “revamped”; which supposedly would mean the ‘Malay content’ of the history be drastically reduced, because non Malays have become citizens here. Why ought the newer populations of the land have a ‘veto right’ on the narration of the land’s history.
Anybody can write A history of Malaysia obviously, including non Malays and foreigners. A Britisher may write A History of New Zealand for instance, but THE History of New Zealand can only come from the perspective of the native Maoris. Only a Malay/native perspective would narrate THE History of Malaysia, not a Japanese, or an unintegrated non Malay perspective.
Thus, many of those tedious complaints about the writing of Malaysia’s history are, if critically examined, unmerited.
Our history is accused of being ‘not inclusive’, ‘not truthful’, and ‘not actually accurate’. Are Malays a deceitful people? How much have the non Malays known or understood the Malays as a people.
A good test would be the phrase “ketuanan Melayu”. Almost without fail non Malays use the phrase to mean (and, supposedly malays do mean it so) “Malay supremacy” or “Malay Supremacism”. Firstly, in international scholarly understanding, “racial supremacy” and “racial supremacists” mean a belief in the superiority of one’s race. Has anybody found such expressions or claims of racial supremacy in Malay pronouncements, past or present?
Unfortunately, scholars and journalists, local and international alike, have never subjected the equating of “ketuanan Melayu” with racial supremacism to critical examination. In fact, lots of other accusations against Malays, as with the history of this Malay land, have never been critically scrutinised, thus building up a situation whereby the Malay or anything Malay is seen and interpreted as untruths, complots, conspiracies, and evils.
Ketuanan Melayu is alleged to be a “divisive … mindset”. Why should that be so?
The country does not impose ketuanan Melayu over the non Malays. Ketuanan Melayu has always been with the land as a Malay consciousness and certainty (that this is Tanah Melayu and Alam Melayu) even before the arrivals of Chinese and Indians to this land 200 years ago. If non Malays had sought to learn/know the people and the land here better, they would have discovered the fact of ketuanan Melayu here a long time ago. Ketuanan Melayu is the very essence of the land itself, its very history.
Ketuanan Melayu was not invented in the 1960’s or 1970’s, as a ‘political tool’ as commonly alleged, or a ‘mindset’ (attitudes) as commonly assumed, to impose on the Chinese and Indians from the 1960’s or 1970’s here, although the phrase ketuanan Melayu may be recent. Just as Bahasa Melayu did not come into being here only from the 1600’s when the language began to appear in written form; the Malay language has been here many many centuries well before that, as not just a spoken language, but also a regional lingua franca.
On the matter of inclusiveness, haven’t the Malay led governments been inclusive since the start, even in the composition of the government itself right from the start, offering more parliamentary seats to the non Malays in general elections, more than there were non Malay constituencies. Has not our history narrative been inclusive enough; what amount of inclusiveness is considered enough by non Malays. Obviously, Malays would not accede to an inclusiveness demand that would dilute the historical Malayness of the land.
And, the allegation goes that history writing in Malaysia is directed by a “divisive agenda of ethnonationalism”. How does one respond to such word salad? How about saying the incessant criticisms of Malaysian history show an “unabated group chauvinism and aggression” intent on hacking and hijacking the history of Malaya and Malaysia, to erase it of its Malayness, and to place the Malays not far removed from being a de-historicised people.
Finally, encouraging the prime minister to build a “Malaysia for Malaysians” (a “New Malaysia”) as in the Open letter.
Here, we need a very englightened understanding of identities in Malaya and Malaysia, the outlines of which have been discernible since the end of the Japanese occupation of Malaya in 1945, in particular. This is what knowing the land, that is called Tanah Melayu (or, the badly
anglicised ‘Malaya’), and its people is about. And, also knowing Malaysia as the land and its people is about. The intricacies of identity in Malaya and Malaysia in its history.
See, for Malays particularly in Malaya, being called ‘Malayan’ was/is an ‘alien’ experience, very much felt in the 1940’s and 1950’s. As, far as the Malays were concerned they were Melayu (whether as the population of a Malay state, or the population of the Malay Federation i.e. Malaya). And, if one understands it, this is very close to appreciating the Malay sense of tanah air, tanah tumpah darahku. And, that sense is still here with us in Malaya/Tanah Melayu, and Malaysia.
Only the non Malays were known/became to be called ‘Malayans’ in the Peninsula, in a hopeful effort to wean them off their Chinese/China, and Indian/India identity in the Peninsula - i.e. founding a new identity.
For the Malays in Tanah Melayu and in Malaysia their identity is wholly and will always remain Melayu; there is no other identity that they possessed that needed to be weaned off. Thus, today don’t ask any Malay whether he is ‘Malay first’ or ‘Malayan first’ or ‘Malaysian first’. He is just, only and simply Melayu. Being ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ has almost a hollow meaning to him, other than its simple necessity as an identity in international travels and interactions, a very formal identity. And, where in his identity card he is ‘Melayu’ is a very important, historical statement to him; if non Malays do not want their ethnic identity to be recorded in their identity card, or any other official documents, that is up to them, but they cannot demand the Malay has to drop his ‘Melayu’ identity too, or to drop the name Tanah Melayu.
For Chinese and Indians in Malaya and Malaysia, being/recognised as ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ carries a very important statement, and one that bestows an important value. They cannot afford to be ‘Chinese first’ or ‘Indian first’, as that conveys the meaning that their essential and primary identification is with China or India. So, it does make sense to ask them today if they are ‘Malaysian first’, or not. And, it would be very good for them to declare that they are ‘Malaysian first’, or for short they are ‘Malaysians’. The identity ‘Chinese’ or ‘Indian’ is ‘troublesome’.
But, to ask a Malay if he is ‘Malay first’ or ‘Malayan first’ or ‘Malaysian first’, is plain rudeness. He is definitely ‘Melayu first’ (unnecessary at all for him to declare himself ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’), and always; his Melayu does not point to an identification with any foreign countries or land, but an identification with a whole Alam Melayu - the Kepulauan Melayu (Malay Archipelago). Being Melayu means the man of the Archipelago. And, he is here.
What riles the Malay from the 1946 ‘Malayan’ days is the expectation by non Malays that the Malay must accept the ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ identity as his true and real ethnic identity too, and get rid of his Melayu identity.
It is in our history that in the effort to obtain merdeka from the British in the 1940’s, to be ‘Malayan’ was supposed to signal one’s (the non Malay) identification with the land, and therefore entitlement to citizenship.
To the British who were preparing to leave Tanah Melayu, Malayans were the non Malays who would be ‘malayanising’ themselves after they obtained their citizenship of Malaya; and,
by ‘malayanising’ the British meant absolutely conforming to “the ways of the land”; not, however meaning having to become Malays or muslims.
Did that ‘malayanising’ actually happen as per British expectation? Tunku Abdul Rahman , who assumed leadership of the Malays in seeking to obtain merdeka, succeeding Onn Jaafar in 1951, placed the compelling query “who are these ‘Malayans”?
Similarly, with Malaysia, has ‘malaysianising’ as per the British expectation in Malaya been achieved?
If the Malayanising and Malaysianising have not meaningfully taken place, then who are these ‘Malayans’ and the ‘Malaysians’? Are they Malayans or Malaysians by formality (carrying Malaysian passports, possessing Malaysian identity cards) alone, or in real meaningful essence - not necessarily in the absolute essence.
Thus, the call for “Malaysia for Malaysians” needs to be scrutinised. Does ‘Malaysians’ here mean non Malays who ‘Malaysianised’ (as per the British expectation with regard to Malaya in our history); or, also non Malays who have not ‘Malaysianised’ too; or simply the non Malays, totally. Because, the Malays do not need the term ‘Malayan’ or ‘Malaysian’ to establish their local identity, and all that entails.
Let us see.
In certain national argumentations, the phrase “Malaysian Agenda”, often crops up as the ‘noble’ agenda to upstage what has been called derogatively as the “Malay Agenda”, which is described as vile, ‘racist’ (which are normal epithets reserved for anything Malay), one alleged by non Malays as a “divisive agenda of ethnonationalism”.
Now, If one peruses the items and argumentations in the “Malaysian Agenda” (which are claimed to be totally non racial), and there have been articles written about these, one will find the items are all what non Malays want; absolutely no items that cater for Malay and native legitimate concerns.
Thus, the phrase “Malaysia for Malaysians” (or, “Malaysian Malaysia”) is eerily a “Non Malay Agenda” - really. Not, a truly, un-racial national agenda it is claimed to be. The phrases “Malaysia for Malaysians” and “Malaysian Malaysia” are not just deceptive, but also divisive and destructive. Because themes like ‘equality’, ‘meritocracy’, ‘fairness’, ‘justice’, ‘freedom’, ‘competition’, etc. that fully inhabit the so called “Malaysian Agenda”, fully pursued would lead to the outcome of Malays and other natives here cast to the margins of society, as what has fully happened to all the natives in South American countries today, as an example.
On the other hand, what has derisively been called the “Malay Agenda” is a government policy clearly spelled out to put a special effort (derisively called ‘racial discrimination’ by most non Malays, and many foreigners too) to raise the economic and educational positions of the Malays and other natives, who are far behind the non Malays in these areas; while the government does not abandon the ‘legitimate interests of other communities’ (the phrase that is in the country’s constitution), meaning the non Malays.
It is unfortunate that people who commonly write on Malaysian affairs have never taken a critical approach in their appreciation of the various allegations and criticisms made about Malaysia, and the Malays.
The great truly Malayan/Malaysian Document has always been the Malaysian Constitution (founded on the original constitution of Malaya) where the interests of all are recorded, in the phrase “the special position of the Malays and other natives, and the legitimate interests of other communities”. And, it would not be wrong to claim that the much maligned so called ‘Malay Agenda’ is close in spirit and content to the national objective, but the same cannot be said for the much vaunted “Malaysian Agenda”.
Thus, in criticising the contents of history text books in Malaysia, one is well advised to understand the intricacies of identity in Malaysia, and the big picture of history in the land. The contents of the textbooks are not a stand-alone item, totally detached and alien from the big History, one with the big ‘H’.
It is disrespectful to the land and its founding people, for anyone to be calling for a “revamp” of the history of the land. Our National History narrative is largely on the right track. And, it is not one to be determined by the government of the day, but by the senses of the natives, as anywhere else in the world, with the major exceptions of India and China as mentioned earlier.
Malaysia should never be like China or India, where history is revamped from time to time, ordered by strong men in the capital city. That is not our way.
Not here.
Arof Ishak
Kuala Lumpur, 19 Jun 2022.
Adab, budi orang Melayu kian terhakis - Rais | Berita Harian https://www.bharian.com.my/amp/berita/nasional/2022/06/967645/adab-budi-orang-melayu-kian-terhakis-rais
Adab, budi orang Melayu kian terhakis - Rais | Berita Harian https://www.bharian.com.my/amp/berita/nasional/2022/06/967645/adab-budi-orang-melayu-kian-terhakis-rais
|
|
Adab to hand over memorandum to PM on matters affecting Malay interests
http://prn.bernama.com/melaka/news.php?c=&id=2092586
http://prn.bernama.com/melaka/news.php?c=&id=2092586
ADAB akan adakan mesyuarat bincang isu kepentingan masyarakat Melayu
https://www.bernama.com/en//news.php?id=2092586
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2022/06/967656/lembaga-peradaban-melayu-perjuangkan-isu-tanah-rizab-ekonomi
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2022/06/967847/tanah-rizab-melayu-didakwa-hanya-tinggal-kira-kira-12-peratus
https://www.bernama.com/en//news.php?id=2092586
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2022/06/967656/lembaga-peradaban-melayu-perjuangkan-isu-tanah-rizab-ekonomi
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2022/06/967847/tanah-rizab-melayu-didakwa-hanya-tinggal-kira-kira-12-peratus
Pernyataan ADAB mengenai tenaga kerja Indonesia.
Kuala Lumpur . 17 Julai 2022.
"ADAB, sebuah NGO yang mendukung rapi Peradaban Melayu, memberi perhatian serious terhadap sebarang perkembangan perhubungan diantara Malaysia dan Indonesia.
Sebagai serumpun Bangsa yang identitinya berteraskan peradaban yang sama, walaupun telah mengharungi gelombang sejarah yang berlainan, kita tetap kekal dengan pertalian persaudaraan yang mesra lagi saling memperkasakan kedua Negara.
ADAB amat yakin isu seperti tenaga kerja dari Indonesia dapat diselesaikan dengan penuh semangat keserumpunan dan peradaban bangsa.
https://www.utusan.com.my/nasional/2022/07/isu-pekerja-indonesia-selesaikan-atau-ekonomi-makin-teruk/
Kuala Lumpur, 7 Januari 2022.
Pengasas & Pengerusi Majlis ADAB meninggal dunia akibat kemalangan
https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/tan-sri-mohd-yusof-hitam-meninggal-dunia-akibat-kemalangan-340359
Pengasas & Pengerusi Majlis ADAB meninggal dunia akibat kemalangan
https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/tan-sri-mohd-yusof-hitam-meninggal-dunia-akibat-kemalangan-340359
Kuala Lumpur, 11 September 2021.
Pewaris & Naib Pengerusi Majlis ADAB meninggal dunia
https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/tan-sri-zaman-khan-meninggal-dunia-319153
Pewaris & Naib Pengerusi Majlis ADAB meninggal dunia
https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/tan-sri-zaman-khan-meninggal-dunia-319153
Memorandum berkenaan Pelan Tindakan Perpaduan Negara
Perlembagaan Malaysia dan Negeri-Negeri wajib dipertahankan.
Kuala Lumpur. 16 Ogos 2020.
Lembaga Peradaban Melayu (ADAB) menolak sebarang usaha untuk melemahkan, apatah lagi menghapuskan, Kedaulatan dan Kuasa pada Raja dan Majlis Raja Raja seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia dan Negeri-Negeri. Ia wajib dipertahankan.
Perlembagaan Malaysia dan Negeri-Negeri adalah Tekad Tertinggi, dan wajib dipertahankan sebagai landasan untuk membangun sebuah Negara yang aman, maju yang adil dan saksama; dan selamat daripada ideologi Globalisasi serta berupaya mengambil tempat yang sesuai dalam masyarakat antarabangsa, sesuai dengan Fitrah Allah S.W.T. ADAB ingin melihat sejarah dengan Naratif huraian daripada sudut pandangan Rumpun Bangsa Melayu Pribumi.
Dalam hal ini, ADAB mengambil sikap bahawa dinamika penggerak suatu Bangsa terikat kepada eko-alami, dan juga kepada Peradaban kejiranannya. Maka tiada niat bagi ADAB melihat sejarah daripada sudut kemegahan atau permusuhan; melainkan dengan harapan supaya timbul semangat hormat, kasih sayang, kesetiaan dan keadilan yang saksama dalam Kerajaan dan Bangsa Malaysia (Persekutuan Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu).
Bersama kita amati kata orang tua-tua:
"Kalau tak kenal, maka tak sayang;
Kalau tak sayang, maka tak cinta;
Kalau tak cinta, maka tak setia;
Kalau tak setia, maka kacau roba"
Setia Negara harus peka; tujuan harus jelas; kemakmuran harus selamat; dan kemakmuran harus "adil dan saksama".
ADAB yakin kepada imbauan dan Naratif sejarah yang tepat dan bijaksana boleh melahirkan semangat kasih sayang, kesetiaan, dan kejujuran untuk berdepan dengan ideologi Globalisasi dan geo-politik dunia bagi melindungi Negara ini daripada ideologi Globalisasi yang sesat dari jalan kebenaran bagi manusia sejagat.
ADAB amat mengharapkan kerjasama yang berkesan daripada semua Ahli dan penyokong untuk menjayakan CITRA ADAB, sesuai dengan kemampuan masing-masing.
Pendirian dan hasrat ADAB ini dihuraikan dengan jelas di dalam buku terbitan terbarunya "CITRA ADAB - Umbaian Tekad Peradaban Melayu" yang turut dilancarkan semasa Mesyuarat Agung Tahunannya.
BUKU CITRA ADAB
Lembaga Peradaban Melayu (ADAB) menolak sebarang usaha untuk melemahkan, apatah lagi menghapuskan, Kedaulatan dan Kuasa pada Raja dan Majlis Raja Raja seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia dan Negeri-Negeri. Ia wajib dipertahankan.
Perlembagaan Malaysia dan Negeri-Negeri adalah Tekad Tertinggi, dan wajib dipertahankan sebagai landasan untuk membangun sebuah Negara yang aman, maju yang adil dan saksama; dan selamat daripada ideologi Globalisasi serta berupaya mengambil tempat yang sesuai dalam masyarakat antarabangsa, sesuai dengan Fitrah Allah S.W.T. ADAB ingin melihat sejarah dengan Naratif huraian daripada sudut pandangan Rumpun Bangsa Melayu Pribumi.
Dalam hal ini, ADAB mengambil sikap bahawa dinamika penggerak suatu Bangsa terikat kepada eko-alami, dan juga kepada Peradaban kejiranannya. Maka tiada niat bagi ADAB melihat sejarah daripada sudut kemegahan atau permusuhan; melainkan dengan harapan supaya timbul semangat hormat, kasih sayang, kesetiaan dan keadilan yang saksama dalam Kerajaan dan Bangsa Malaysia (Persekutuan Negeri-Negeri Tanah Melayu).
Bersama kita amati kata orang tua-tua:
"Kalau tak kenal, maka tak sayang;
Kalau tak sayang, maka tak cinta;
Kalau tak cinta, maka tak setia;
Kalau tak setia, maka kacau roba"
Setia Negara harus peka; tujuan harus jelas; kemakmuran harus selamat; dan kemakmuran harus "adil dan saksama".
ADAB yakin kepada imbauan dan Naratif sejarah yang tepat dan bijaksana boleh melahirkan semangat kasih sayang, kesetiaan, dan kejujuran untuk berdepan dengan ideologi Globalisasi dan geo-politik dunia bagi melindungi Negara ini daripada ideologi Globalisasi yang sesat dari jalan kebenaran bagi manusia sejagat.
ADAB amat mengharapkan kerjasama yang berkesan daripada semua Ahli dan penyokong untuk menjayakan CITRA ADAB, sesuai dengan kemampuan masing-masing.
Pendirian dan hasrat ADAB ini dihuraikan dengan jelas di dalam buku terbitan terbarunya "CITRA ADAB - Umbaian Tekad Peradaban Melayu" yang turut dilancarkan semasa Mesyuarat Agung Tahunannya.
BUKU CITRA ADAB
Sebahagian ahli Lembaga Peradaban Melayu (ADAB) yang menghadiri Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan Kali Ke-9 di KGPA pada 16 Ogos 2020. Mesyuarat dipengerusikan oleh Pewaris dan Timbalan Pengerusi Majlis ADAB, Dato' Ghazali Mohd Yusoff. Turut diundang ialah Prof. Madya Dr Shamrahayu yang menyampaikan ucaptama dalam MAT-9 kali ini.
ADAB mengalu-alukan penglibatan Golongan Belia
Kuala Lumpur. 16 Ogos 2020.
Lembaga Peradaban Melayu berhasrat mendekati golongan belia, dalam usaha meningkatkan kefahaman dan penghayatan generasi yang bakal menerajui dan memangkin kesejahteraan negara pada masa hadapan, dalam kerjasama mewujudkan generasi yang menghormati prinsip Perlembagaan Persekutuan seterusnya mempertahankan kedaulatan negara.
ADAB berpendapat golongan muda perlu didedahkan dengan identiti pembangunan negara yang sebenar dan tidak terbawa-bawa dengan Ideologi barat. Generasi muda perlu dibimbing mengenai asal usul dan cabaran semasa yang boleh menghakis nilai-nilai murni budaya dan peradaban timur, disamping mengasah anjakan minda rumpun Bangsa Melayu di negara ini.
Oleh yang demikian, ADAB mengalu-alukan penglibatan anak-anak muda untuk menjadi ahli ADAB. ADAB juga bersedia berkerjasama dengan mana-mana individu atau pertubuhan yang sealiran dengannya.
Biro Belia ADAB turut diwujudkan dalam Mesyuarat Tahunan Ke-9 nya. ADAB bakal menganjurkan aktiviti-aktiviti berkaitan bagi mendokong tujuan tersebut.
Borang Keahlian
Lembaga Peradaban Melayu berhasrat mendekati golongan belia, dalam usaha meningkatkan kefahaman dan penghayatan generasi yang bakal menerajui dan memangkin kesejahteraan negara pada masa hadapan, dalam kerjasama mewujudkan generasi yang menghormati prinsip Perlembagaan Persekutuan seterusnya mempertahankan kedaulatan negara.
ADAB berpendapat golongan muda perlu didedahkan dengan identiti pembangunan negara yang sebenar dan tidak terbawa-bawa dengan Ideologi barat. Generasi muda perlu dibimbing mengenai asal usul dan cabaran semasa yang boleh menghakis nilai-nilai murni budaya dan peradaban timur, disamping mengasah anjakan minda rumpun Bangsa Melayu di negara ini.
Oleh yang demikian, ADAB mengalu-alukan penglibatan anak-anak muda untuk menjadi ahli ADAB. ADAB juga bersedia berkerjasama dengan mana-mana individu atau pertubuhan yang sealiran dengannya.
Biro Belia ADAB turut diwujudkan dalam Mesyuarat Tahunan Ke-9 nya. ADAB bakal menganjurkan aktiviti-aktiviti berkaitan bagi mendokong tujuan tersebut.
Borang Keahlian
Liputan Media
Bernama TV
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3471216669565199&id=167047123315520
Bebas News
https://bebasnews.my/?p=41937
Bernama news
https://www.bernama.com/bm/am/news.php?id=1870842
Bernama TV
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3471216669565199&id=167047123315520
Bebas News
https://bebasnews.my/?p=41937
Bernama news
https://www.bernama.com/bm/am/news.php?id=1870842
Tindakan tegas perlu diambil terhadap individu-individu yang terlibat mecemar lukisan-lukisan mural pemimpin-pemimpin negara.
Kuala Lumpur. 16 Ogos 2020.
Mesyuarat Agung ke-9 Lembaga Peradaban Melayu hari ini, agar selaras dengan CITRA ADAB sebab asas tindakan Lembaga Peradaban Melayu adalah mengusulkan supaya tindakan tegas diambil terhadap orang-orang yang telah mencemar lukisan-lukisan mural di Seksyen U12, Shah Alam terhadap wajah DYMM YDP Agong dan pemimpin-pemimpin negara serta mengenakan tindakan undang-undang dan hukuman yang sewajarnya.
Lembaga Peradaban Melayu mengutuk sekeras-kerasnya semua tindakan yang mencemar nama dan kedudukan DYMM YDP Agong sebagai Ketua Negara Malaysia.
Mesyuarat Agung ke-9 Lembaga Peradaban Melayu hari ini, agar selaras dengan CITRA ADAB sebab asas tindakan Lembaga Peradaban Melayu adalah mengusulkan supaya tindakan tegas diambil terhadap orang-orang yang telah mencemar lukisan-lukisan mural di Seksyen U12, Shah Alam terhadap wajah DYMM YDP Agong dan pemimpin-pemimpin negara serta mengenakan tindakan undang-undang dan hukuman yang sewajarnya.
Lembaga Peradaban Melayu mengutuk sekeras-kerasnya semua tindakan yang mencemar nama dan kedudukan DYMM YDP Agong sebagai Ketua Negara Malaysia.
Sumber Sarawak Voice
https://sarawakvoice.com/2020/07/21/conteng-mural-laporan-polis-dibuat-individu-terbabit-dikutuk-keras/
Sumber The Star
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/07/20/murals-of-leaders-removed-after-sprayed-with-red-paint
Sumber BH online
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/kes/2020/07/715952/kes-conteng-mural-selesai-dalam-masa-terdekat
Sumber Malaysiagazette.com
https://malaysiagazette.com/2020/07/11/al-sultan-abdullah-berkenan-bergambar-bersama-mural-gergasi-baginda/
https://sarawakvoice.com/2020/07/21/conteng-mural-laporan-polis-dibuat-individu-terbabit-dikutuk-keras/
Sumber The Star
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/07/20/murals-of-leaders-removed-after-sprayed-with-red-paint
Sumber BH online
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/kes/2020/07/715952/kes-conteng-mural-selesai-dalam-masa-terdekat
Sumber Malaysiagazette.com
https://malaysiagazette.com/2020/07/11/al-sultan-abdullah-berkenan-bergambar-bersama-mural-gergasi-baginda/
Aktiviti
MEMORANDUM ATAS PERKARA: AKTA HASUTAN 1948, AKTA NO.15
| sidang_akhbar_teks.pdf |
Projek Usahasama Penerbitan Dokumentari TV Sejarah Bangsa Melayu di Nusantara (Jan 2019)
Sembang Santai bersama Generasi Muda (Jan 2019)
SEMINAR ANTARABANGSA PERADABAN MELAYU
RAKYAT, RAJA DAN KERAJAAN
TARIKH : 19 -20 NOVEMBER 2014
MASA : 19 November (Rabu) 8.00am-5.00pm (8.00am - 9.00am : Pendaftaran)
: 20 November (Khamis) 9.00am - 5.30pm
TEMPAT : Institut Diplomasi dan Hubungan Luar
Jalan Wisma Putra, 50460 Kuala Lumpur.
Pembentang Kertas Kerja di Seminar Antarabangsa Peradaban Melayu: Rakyat, Raja dan Kerajaan:
1. Sekapur sirih.
Tan Sri Dato' Mohd Yusof Hitam, Pengerusi Majlis ADAB
2. Dari Waad kpd Raja Berpelembagaan: Sendi Pemerintahan Negara Malaysia
Prof Datuk Dr Zainal Kling, COLGIS, UUM
3. Persetiaan Raja, Kerajaan dan Rakyat drpd perspektif Islam.
Prof Dato' Dr Idris Zakaria, UKM
4. Persetiaan Melayu Bugis dlm Sejarah Johor-Riau.
Prof Datuk Dr Abdullah Zakaria Ghazali, UM.
5. Hubungan Raja dgn Rakyat: Suatu Telaah Terhadap Taj al-Salatin dari Perspektif Pemikiran Islam.
Prof Madya Dr Wan Zailan Kamaruddin Wan Ali, UM.
6. Syair Awang Semaun dan Syair Rakis ke Melayu Islam Beraja.
Prof Madya Dr Hj Hashim Hj Abdul Hamid, Akademi Pengajian Brunei.
7. Waad, Wasiat dan nasihat dalam Sulalat al Salatin: Iktibar untuk kepimpinan Melayu
Datuk Zainal Abidin Borhan, Yayasan Karyawan, Pengasas ADAB
8. Raja Berpelembagaan Kesinambungan Waad, Raja dan Rakyat.
Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu Abd Aziz, IKIM
9. Hubungan antara Raja, Adat dan Rakyat berdasarkan Undang-undang Pangaderreng di Sulawesi Selatan. Prof Dr Nurhayati Rahman, Universitas Hasanuddin Makasar.
10. Upacara Perasmian Seminar.
YTM Dato' Seri Diraja Tan Sri Tunku Puteri Intan Syafinaz Tuanku Alhaj Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah, Tunku Panglima Besar Kedah (Ahli Jemaah Pemangku Sultan Kedah)
11. Forum-Rakyat & Raja Berpisah Tiada
a. Panel 1: Tun Mohamed Hanif Omar, Pengerusi Pewaris ADAB
b. Panel 2: TSD Dr Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman, Pengamal Undang2 & Mantan CEO MAS
c. Dato' Dr Affifudin Omar, KUIN, Pewaris ADAB
Telah dibukukan dan diterbitkan oleh LPM(ADAB)
Sebahagian daripada ahli ADAB yang hadir pada Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan kali ke-3 di Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya pada 31 Mac 2014.
Perjumpaan santai antara ahli Majlis ADAB dan Sekretariat Konferen WMPO sambil berbincang mengenai 2nd International Conference of Melayu-Polynesia & Trade Show pada penghujung bulan Mac 2014 yang bakal dianjurkan oleh The World Melayu-Polynesia Organization di New Zealand kelak. Untuk maklumat lanjut bolehlah berhubung dengan Sekretariat WMPO di emel wiwsalleh12@gmail.com
Tidak lupa juga ucapan Terima kasih atas jamuan tengahari yang ditaja oleh Timbalan Pengerusi ADAB dan "Happy Belated Birthday", semoga dipanjangkan umur dan dimurahkan rezeki.
Tidak lupa juga ucapan Terima kasih atas jamuan tengahari yang ditaja oleh Timbalan Pengerusi ADAB dan "Happy Belated Birthday", semoga dipanjangkan umur dan dimurahkan rezeki.
Mesyuarat bulanan Ahli Majlis ADAB ke 15.
Perbincangan Meja Bulat ADAB kali pertama (RT1) pada 9 Nov 2013 yang diadakan di Kelab Golf Negara Subang (KGNS).
Mesyuarat Agung ADAB yang pertama diadakan pada 31 Mac 2012 bertempat di Wisma Sejarah, Kuala Lumpur bagi melantik ahli Majlis bagi Penggal 2012-2014.
Mesyuarat dipengerusikan oleh Pengerusi Penaja ADAB iaitu YBhg. Tan Sri Dato' Mohd. Yusof bin Hitam.
Mesyuarat dipengerusikan oleh Pengerusi Penaja ADAB iaitu YBhg. Tan Sri Dato' Mohd. Yusof bin Hitam.
Menikmati juadah sambil beramah mesra di kalangan ahli dan ahli Majlis ADAB yang baru dilantik selepas Mesyuarat Agung selesai.
- ADAB telah diterima sebagai kerabat Majlis Perundingan Melayu (MPM) dan telah menyertai kegiatan MPM.
- Pengerusi Majlis Penaja ADAB, Tan Sri Dato' Mohd Yusof Hitam mewakili ADAB dalam MPM dan telah dipilih sebagai Ketua Biro Antarabangsa MPM.
- ADAB telah memulakan perbincangan dan perancangan untuk melaksanakan projek mengkaji waad Demang Lebar Daun dan Sang Sapurba.
- ADAB telah memulakan usaha memperkenalkan diri dengan mengambil bahagian dalam seminar di Universiti Teknologi MARA di Shah Alam pada 21hb Disember 2011.
- Menyebut juga kemungkinan projek seterusnya seperti seminar antarabangsa maritim Nusantara serta perkampungan Nusantara, dan juga penyertaan dalam Yayasan Ikatan Rakyat Malaysia - Indonesia dan Jawatankuasa bersama Malaysia - Indonesia yang telah dinyatakan pembentukannya dalam bulan Mac 2012.
- ADAB telah mengadakan sesi Dialog Meja Bulat sistem Pendidikan Nasional pada 14bh Julai 2012 bertempat di Menara Wisma Sejarah, Kuala Lumpur bersama MPM.
