Little difference between colony and protectorate

'The fact is the British ruled this country and a good amount of wealth has been taken out from the country.'

Hadi: Ridiculous to say nation never colonised

RAW: I am neither a historian nor a politician, but let me offer perhaps a more balanced view here. There is no need to jump on poor Professor Khoo Kay Kim.

From a historical and academic point of view, he is right. The mere fact that the sultanates of the nine then Malay states existed continuously throughout the British rule until now supported what he said. Historically, those states were protectorates.

Only Penang, Malacca and Singapore, which did not have the Malay rulers, were colonies as they were ruled by governors appointed by Britain.

Nonetheless, in reality, as far as who exercised the real authoritative ruling power and political control over state affairs, I think there is no difference between the three colonies and the nine protectorates where the sultans were given only restrictive symbolic authority to govern the domestic and religious affairs of the Malay population.

In that sense, those nine protectorates were just as good or as bad as the three colonies.

Penanglang: These so-called historians can babble as they wish, but the arguments are scientifically flawed. Mind you, it's the substance that matters, not the legal form.

The federal government of a sovereign Malaysia today consists of three branches - executive, legislative and judiciary.

Think, who holds the authority over these functions in both the federated and unfederated Malay states before the Second World War? What was the structure of the Malayan Union and the Federation of Malaya prior to the 1955 election?

Could someone please compare between the governance structure of the Federation of Malaya since 1948 and the governance structure of Hong Kong until 1997? Particularly, the role and powers between the British High Commissioner in Malaya and the governor of Hong Kong.

Chandran Sukumaran: I am no historian or professor, but what is the difference between a colony or protectorate?

The fact is the British ruled this country and a good amount of wealth has been taken out from the country. They enforced law and order and all other administration and the population was subservient to them. What do you call this?

Phra Ong Chao: From the international law point of view, only the Straits Settlement had the status of British colonies while the rest of the peninsula were British protected states.

Sabah and Sarawak were legally protectorates of Britain. Colonies are territories of their colonial masters who exercise full control over all aspects of the colony while protected states and protectorates retain their sovereignty.

The state giving protection to protected states and protectorates is responsible for the latter's external relations and defence.

These are some differences between a true colony, protected states and protectorates. Thus, legally speaking, only Malacca and Penang were British colonies.

Disbeliever: If the then Malaya wasn't a British colony, why was there a mission to seek independence? If only Singapore, Malacca and Penang were part of the British empire, then rightly, these three states (Singapore is now a self-ruling country) should be independent entities.

In fact, the whole of Malaysia should not be celebrating Independence but rather we all should celebrate Malaysia Day, September 16, since Malaysia was formed on this day in 1963 with the inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak.

Please don't crucify me as a non-patriot because in my opinion, celebrating Aug 31 is akin to disregarding Sabah and Sarawak. Aug 31 should rightly remain a chapter for the history books but September 16 is the day for all Malaysians to celebrate the founding/formation of Malaysia.

Ben-ghazi: It looks like we have a bunch of 'kangkung' academics in the national professorial council. What a great shame the council has brought upon itself with the kind of statement made by Professor Zainal Kling, who is said to be head of history department at UPSI (Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris).

With this kind of professor teaching at UPSI, no wonder the university is only churning out half-past six teachers who will be teaching our children and grandchildren. Professor Zainal majored in Malay culture, so how come he is head of history?

Anonimous Z: I think all of us have been fooled - Malaysia has actually gone from British colonisation to Umnoputra colonisation.

It is like jumping from a hot pan into an inferno. During the British time, it was bad, but it was never this bad like now.

Maybe it is the time the rakyat stand up to fight for real independence - from the Umnoputra colonisation.

Abasir: With 'Umnoised' professors like the ones who have gained fame through the castrated press and self-anointed historians coming out of the woodwork, it's little wonder the country continues to produce half-baked semi-literates masquerading as the intelligentsia.

But I guess with Tan Sri and Datuk titles on offer for political loyalty, these parasitic academicians will continue to say whatever pleases their political masters. 'Professor emeritus' has a new meaning in Malaysia.

Anonymously: I am utterly shocked with the statement by celebrated historian Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim that our country was never ruled by the British.

I used to be a distinction student for the subject of history during my school days and today I still pride myself for my knowledge of local history.

Now this is mind-boggling. Have I been mis-taught in schools all those years or have our historians gone totally bonkers?

Not Convinced: Now we are told that the sultans 'hired' the British to 'administer' Malaya. Indeed, we paid a lot for these top-notched 'foreign managers'.

After all, much of our wealth has gone to Britain during their 'administration'. - Malaysiakini