|
History
A People's Constitution Proposals by the AMCJA-PUTERA - part 3 |
|
In this series we publish the People's Constitutional Proposals proposed by the AMCJA-PUTERA in 1947. The Introduction (in Issue 42) is a valuable historical document which tells of how the UMNO came to be formed and its subsequent break-up, leaving a rump organisation which the British chose to talk to. In Part 2 of the Proposals critically examines the British plans. This instalment sets out the Proposals on citizenship. THE PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS FOR MALAYA, 1947 Drafted by Representatives of the PUSAT TENAGA RA'AYAT or PUTERA, and the ALL-MALAYA COUNCIL OF JOINT ACTION between the months of May and August,1947, and approved by two Conferences of Delegates from the PUTERA and the ALL-MALAYA COUNCIL OF JOINT ACTI0N on July 4–7, and on August 10,1947, together with a full exposition, and an analysis of the Government's Constitutional proposals. **************** CITIZENSHIP. SECTION 2: THERE SHALL BE established a citizenship of Malaya. This citizenship shall be a nationality, to be termed "Melayu," and shall carry with it the duty of allegiance to the Federation of Malaya. NOTE: The term "Melayu" shall have no religious implications whatever. It is necessary, at the outset, that certain terms should be carefully analysed and defined. "Citizenship" is the status of those who owe permanent allegiance to a state, by reason of birth, naturalisation, or (in the case of women) marriage "Nationality" is, in its political sense, synonymous with citizenship. |
| The essential
attribute of both citizenship and nationality is the duty of allegiance
to the state. For instance, Sweet's "Dictionary of English Law" defines nationality as "that quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's be. longing to a nation or state. It determines the political status of the in dividual, especially with reference to allegiance." Again the nationality laws of the United States of America define; "nationals" in general as those owing permanent allegiance to a state. This general definition is followed by their definition of "American nationals" as being of two classes:- (i) Citizens, and (ii) those who, though not citizens, owe permanent allegiance to the United States. This example serves to show that, although it is possible for any particular state to distinguish arbitrarily between citizenship and nationality, by using these two words to distinguish between full nationals and.national of an inferior status, yet, even when this is done, the common basis of permanent allegiance remains. That citizenship and nationality are generally accepted as being' synonymous, and that both these terms connote permanent allegiance, was shown in the course of the trial of William Joyce. The Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, for example, in his opening address, used "citizens and "British subjects" inter-changeably, and it was clearly accepted throughout the trial that the very basis of British nationality was allegiance to the Crown. "Allegiance" is the general duty which embraces all the duties which the citizen owes to the state: it includes, for example, the duty to abide by the constitution, to obey the laws, to defend the country, etc, A divided allegiance is, in our opinion, a contradiction in terms, and acquisition of citizenship under our Proposals therefore means the renunciation of all other allegiances. It is to be noted, however, that this renunciation will not mean, in the case of British subjects, a transfer of allegiance from the Crown: the allegiance of such persons would, on acquiring citizenship, be transferred to His Majesty and Their Highnesses the Malay Rulers jointly. The allegiance which is the common factor of both citizenship and nationality, is owed by the citizen in return for the protection which the state affords. The ancient definition of allegiance, for instance, by Blackstone, which stjll holds good, is "the tie or ligament which binds the subject to the King in return for that protection which the King affords the subject." Such "protection" must today be widely interpreted to cover the general administrative function of promoting the welfare of the people, as well as military and police protection. "Loyalty", is, in its constitutional sense, the sentiment of devotion to a state on the part of those who give their willing allegiance to that state, and who regard the territory of that state as their real home. |
| Loyalty cannot
be adequately defined without reference to allegiance. The ordinary usage
of words confirms that a man cannot be said to be "loyal" to an alien country,
a country to which he does not belong, to which he does not
owe allegiance. He may live there, he may like living there (for various
personal reasons), he may therefore live there for a long time, but
that does not mean that he will be "loyal" to that country. His real loyalty
would perhaps only be crucially tested if the state in which he resides
goes to war with his own state. The Government of his country of residence
will doubt, and rightly doubt, his loyalty to it, since he does not owe
allegiance, to it, though he could have transferred his allegiance to it
by naturalisation if his real loyalty had been to the Government of his
country of residence. In the absence of such a transfer of allegiance by
naturalisation, that Government will rightly doubt any transfer of loyalty. That loyalty connotes duties is seen in the ordinary course of human relationships. Loyalty between friends connotes the mutual acknowledgment of certain duties (and rights), and it is significant, as we shall show later in, our explanation of Section 3 of our Proposals, that these duties become especially important when one of the friends is in trouble. These duties between friends are the basis of mutual trust, and are the Counterpart of the duty of allegiance which is connoted by the word "loyalty" used in its constitutional, sense. This sentiment of loyalty results from the recognition by the citizen that the state affords him protection and promotes his welfare. It is generally accepted today, however, that the state cannot protect its citizens effectively nor effectively promote their welfare, without their co-operation, and that this co-operation cannot be elicited without the recognition of certain political rights, and, in particular, without obtaining the consent of the people to the laws by placing the administration of government in the hands of the people, through their elected representatives.. This question of the necessity for co-operation on the part of citizens if the government is to be effectively administered is treated in greater detail in our explanation of the provisions of Section 24. The. political rights which must be recognised if the co-operation and consent of citizens is to be obtained, must, however, be commensurate with the duties which the state demands of its citizens. Rights without duties is anarchy; duties without rights is slavery. There must bo rights and duties in equal measure. Rights and duties, moreover, are not separate and distinct. The rights of the individual citizen imply, corresponding duties on tho part of all other citizens (that is; to say, of the state), and vice versa. Only on such a democratic give-and-take basis can the citizen feel loyalty to the state; only thus can citizenship be associated with loyalty. It was, we suggest, for these reasons that Mr. A. Creech Jones, at that time Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in dealing with the question of citizenship for Malaya, laid down the principle which, in our opinion, is of the most central and vital importance, that "political rights .... should be extended to those who make Malaya their real home and the object of their loyalty." |
| This principle
expresses the inseparable character of political
rights, loyalty, arid the country which is the real home. We stand most firmly and completely by this principle, and seek to give to it, in our Proposals, the real and valid expression which we feel was not given to it by the Proposals of the Working Committee. This we have done: (i) by incorporating the demand for allegiance into .the definition of citizenship (Section 2) ; (ii) by providing for a period of time during which potential citizens would have full opportunity to consider all the implications of citizenship, namely: (a) that it confers a full national status and therefore excludes the retention of any other nationality; (b) that this national status is to, be termed "Melayu"; (c) that it connotes full allegiance, and therefore the renunciation of all other allegiances; (d) that this allegiance connotes duties, in particular the duty to defend . the country in the event of attack by.any other country (Sections 19 to 21 inclusive) ; (iii by defining the political rights which are complementary to the duties connoted by allegiance and without which .loyalty can have no meaning (Sections 6 to 18 inclusive). In our opinion, the fundamental problem which faces the framers of ii constitution which will form a solid basis for the sound and stable progress, of Malaya towards democratic self-government in the interests of the indigenous and domiciled population, is the raising of the sense of mutual dependence and unity among the people of Malaya to the level of a national consciousness based on loyalty. In view of the fact that Malaya's population consists of various races, and that a large proportion of this population have, at present, alien allegiances, we regard it as a condition precedent to such a development of national .consciousness that allegiance.be demanded of. all those who are to become citizens. This demand for allegiance is the first and essential step that must be taken to bind the people together into a national unity. We visualise that His Majesty's Government will have no difficulty in. accepting this view, since the requirement of the allegiance of citizens was embodied in the original constitutional scheme for Malaya, as enunciated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in paragraph 10 of a White Paper. entitled: "Statement of Policy on Future Constitution," presented to Parliament in January 1946, as follows: |
| ''Those acquiring... citizenship
otherwise than by birth will be required to affirm allegiance ...." Only if .such a demand for allegiance is made can the sentiment of loyalty he properly developed. Loyalty must have an object, and the only proper object of loyalty is a state which extends its protection to its citizens by safe guarding peace and order, and by promoting their welfare.. . As we have shown, this protection can only be given, and this welfare, can only be effectively promoted, by eliciting the co-operation and consent of the citizens by the acknowledgment of political rights. Such an acknowledgement of rights must be accompanied by an acknowledgment on. the part of citizens of those civic duties which, together, comprise the general duty of allegiance. Loyalty cannot, therefore, be separated from allegiance. Without allegiance there cannot be loyalty ... there can only be, at best, a vague and uufocussed sentiment of attachment to the country because, for instance, of its climate, or because the individual concerned has become wealthy there, or hopes to bcome wealthy there, or for some other reason empty of implications of regard for the general welfare and unity of the people. This sentiment of attachment would be associated with an alien allegiance, the existence and consciousness of which would preclude the development of loyalty to Malaya. The Malay delegates at the Constitutional Proposals Conference of PUTERA and the A.M.C.J.A. on July 4 to 7, 1947 drew attention to the very real fear among the Malays that, as a result of British imperial policy, they might be submerged in their own country by aliens who owed no allegiance to the country, and felt no sense of loyalty, duty or obligation towards its indigenous and domiciled people. They therefore emphasised that citizenship must be equated with nationality and connote full allegiance. This was a view with which the Conference unanimously agreed. ________________________ The Working Committee professed to be guided by the central principle that "political rights ..... .should be extended to those who regard Malaya as their real home and as the object of their loyalty." Paragraph 81 on Page 2'-> of the Working Committee's Report states: "Before proceeding to the detailed consideration of the various categories of persons who should be included as citizens, the Committee wished to have clearly before it the meaning of 'citizenship' and its implications. It was explained that it was not a nationality, neither could it develop into a nationality. It would not affect or impair in any respect whatever the status of British subjects in the Settlements, or the status of subjects of the Rulers in the Malay States." The Working Committee did not add, after the last sentence quoted, " ...... or the status of aliens owing, permanent allegiance to countries outside Malaya.". |
| Our
Conference was readily able to understand the reason for the Working Committee's
failure to add these words (which we do not think it will be disputed are
a correct interpretation of the Working Committee's provisions on citizenship),
as such an addition would have made very clear the empty, futile, and dangerous
character of this mockery of citizenship. It will be observed that the "explanation" of citizenship accepted by the Working Committee is in direct opposition to the definition we have given. Whereas we have defined citizenship as being, in its generally accepted sense, synonymous with nationality, the Working Committee accepted that it was not a nationality, and that it would not ever develop into a. nationality. Those who offered this ''explanation" to the Working Committee were very -well aware that the basis of the. definition of nationality, in .British law as in the law of other countries, is allegiance. This, we suggested is such an inherent feature of the meaning of the word "nationality" that, it could not have been absent from the minds of those who "explained" to the Working Committee the meaning of citizenship. Paragraph 89 of the Working Committee's Report, on Page 25, states "Keeping in mind again the principle that citizenship is not a nationality, we concluded that oaths of allegiance would be out of place." If paragraphs 81 and 89 of the Report are read together, it becomes very clear that the Working Committee did in fact associate nationality with, allegiance, and that they did not desire their so-called "citizenship" to connote allegiance; or, in fact, ever to connote allegiance. Paragraph 89 of the Report reveals the real reason for the Working Committee definition of citizenship as not a nationality. It was a circumlocution, the real meaning of which was that citizenship was not to connote allegiance. . By concocting a form of citizenship which is expressly divorced from allegiance, the Working Committee has, in our opinion, made it impossible to develop loyalty, aud therefore national consciousness and racial unity. By their " explanation," the Working Committee threw into the waste-paper basket the concept of allegiance to Malaya, and with it went loyalty, national unity, and the whole future of Malaya as a stable and racially peaceful democracy. Paragraph 81 of the Report also states that their type of "citizenship"' " ..... could be a qualification for electoral rights, for membership of Councils and for employment in Government service, and it could confer other privileges and impose obligations ......" but " ..... it was not possible at present to lay down, precisely what these privileges and obligations would be ª This admission by the Working Committee further confirms that the type of "citizenship" evolved by them does not connote loyalty, since, if it did, they would have been compelled,, by their acceptance of the Under-Secretary of State's principle, to extend political rights to citizens. |
| We suggest
that it was not by chance, however, that the Working Committee accepted
this negative definition of citizenship, which, as we have shown, reveals
that they did not intend their citizenship to connote allegiance. They did not desire this allegiance, because they felt (in our view correctly) that if allegiance was demanded by the constitution, a real and valid loyalty to Malaya would inevitably result. They feared the development of such a loyalty because, as the Under-Secretary of State had clearly indicated to them, such a loyalty would carry with it a legitimate claim for the extension of political rights. Such an extension of political rights would, however, have .been inconsistent with the autocratic structure which they envisaged, in which all power would be concentrated in the hands of a High Commissioner responsible only to His Majesty's Government. They envisaged such a structure because the members of the Working Committee were all concerned, directly or indirectly, to perpetuate the imperial .control of Malaya. They consisted on the one hand of representatives of the Malayan Union .government; most of \whom were bureaucrats steeped in the reactionary traditions of colonial administration; and, on the other hand representatives of the Malay aristocracy and its political organisation, the United Malays National Organisation, the maintenance of whose privilege position depended on the perpetuation of imperial control. If the Federation should come into being on this basis, with citizenship arbitrarily divorced .from allegiance, and therefore from loyalty, and as long-as this anomalous "citizenship," continued to exist, the Federation would be prevented from developing into a sovereign democratic state, and would continue to exist as a real colony, subject to the dictates of an alien government. The struggle for a genuine citizenship, demanding allegiance and engendering loyalty, and for democratic self-government, are therefore inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. The whole future well-being of Malaya would, in our opinion, be very gravely endangered, to say the least, by the introduction of the type of citizenship proposed by the Working Committee. There will be no allegiance, because allegiance is expressly divorced from citizenship; there will be no loyalty and no national unity, because there is no allegiance; there will be no political rights and no civic duties, because there will be no loyalty; there will be racial disharmony and class strife, because there will be no national unity; there will be no national unity, because there is no democracy. Moreover, the Working Committee's citizenship would deliberately foster aud encourage in "citizens" of non-Malay race the retention of their feeling of attachment and allegiance to countries outside Malaya, and. their indifference to the welfare of the indigenous and domiciled population. A citizenship which would make it possible for the Consul of a foreign state to sit in th Federal Legislature as a " citizen," is nothing but a tragic farce. |
| Such "citizens", of
Chinese race, for instance, would, in the event of a war in which the
Federation was involved against China, be interned as Chinese nationals.
If this were not done, it would be the real national duty of such citizens
to do everything in their power to sabotage Malaya's war effort. These facts reveal the dangerous and futile nature of this " citizenship" and expose it as a fraud on the indigenous and domiciled people of Malaya. No illusion could be more detrimental to the future of Malaya than suppose that " citizens," encouraged in this way to retain their allegiance to countries outside Malaya, could be gradually persuaded to substitute such alien allegiances, a genuine allegiance to Malaya on which stable political progress could be based. These few words of the Working Committee would always be there to bar the path to the development of loyalty to Malaya - "Citizenship ..... is not a nationality, neither can it develop into a nationality ..... Keeping this in mind ..... allegiance would be out of place." We therefore consider it to be a matter of- the most vital imports that this mockery of citizenship should not be introduced. It would be a gross. betrayal of the Labour Government's pledge to advance Malaya towards selg-government. Self-government would be absolutely precluded by the deliberate rejection of allegiance. Loyalty would be still-born, anil without loyalty, there could be no political rights. It is absolutely essential and imperative that citizenship should connote allegiance. The Working Committee themselves have admitted that their citizenship could never develop into a nationality. Out of their own mouths, therefore, their citizenship is condemned, since there can be no reason for the creation of a citizenship other than that it should be the expression of, and calculated to foster the development of, national consciousness and unity.# (to be continued) For Part 2 Go to the top |
|
The Lestari Heritage Network
Incorporating Asia and West Pacific Network for Urban Conservation (AWPNVC) articles on heritage places and issues www.lestariheritage.net |
| ______ INDEX Point to the article that you want to read, and CLICK Index page The Black Market Administration Book review Chinese
words in Malay Food guide
Jazz Letter from Pulau Tikus The nightmare A people's constitution (3)
|
| _____________________ The Penang File Issue 44 |