英國殖民者埋的坑，我們馬來西亞人看得最清楚_風聞

馬來西亞《星報》網站6月24日刊登星報媒體集團顧問、前董事經理拿督斯里黃振威文章《與中國共命運》

文：Wong Chun Wai

譯：Kris

你真的不得不佩服英國人“會玩”。只要瞭解一點馬來亞歷史的人就知道，殖民時期的英國官員們從來都只説自己是顧問。

他們是英國公務員，但他們手裏握着最終的決定權。

更糟糕的是，各個馬來王朝的蘇丹們——當時馬來半島名義上的統治者——都在英國人的“誘導”下認為自己仍然是掌管着國家。

在英屬馬來亞——包括18至20世紀馬來半島和新加坡受英國統治的許多國家——英國殖民官員十分精明地讓蘇丹裁定宗教和民俗事務，然後包攬了其他幾乎所有事務的最終決定權。

也就是説，理論上馬來亞的統治者還是蘇丹，他們可以繼續享受榮華富貴，保留皇家威儀，但他們的羽翼卻被剪除了。

這是馬來聯邦（federated Malay states）的情況，但在海峽殖民地（Strait Settlements），英國又另外委任了總督。

比如馬六甲，儘管它歷史上有輝煌的馬六甲蘇丹王朝（明史稱作滿剌加國），可它仍然跟檳城和新加坡一樣，得接受一個“空降”的白人總督。

1888年英國在馬來亞和新加坡的屬地

上週，馬來西亞總理馬哈蒂爾·穆罕默德非常恰當地在講話中指出，“馬來西亞雖説屬於大英共榮圈（譯註：一般譯為英聯邦），但它與某些支配財富的繁榮國家之間沒什麼共同點……英國人承認馬來蘇丹的統治權，但蘇丹們卻從來沒有真正統治過。所以當他們（英國人）批評我們獨裁的時候，我想他們説這話其實自己也不當真。”

英國人的手段還不止於此。進入20世紀後，英國殖民者為了鎮壓馬來亞共產當武裝，制定了許多高壓專制的法律，比如《內部安全法令》（Internal Security Act）。根據《內安法令》規定，當局可以對被懷疑的個人實施單獨拘禁60天，並且可以在不開庭審理的情況下延長扣留期至兩年。

儘管下面採取雷霆手段，英國人仍然可以面不改色地告訴世界，是他們讓當地人學會了正義、民主和公平等原則。英國人還説，1941年日本侵略馬來亞以及1957年馬來亞聯合邦獨立時，當地人民都對拋棄他們的英國流下了不捨的淚水。

1957年，當米字旗在馬來西亞大地落下時，開國總理東古·阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼保留了《內安法令》，並用它來拘留共產主義傾向的左翼分子。今天，多數馬來西亞人不知道，《內安法令》最初其實是英國人的傑作。

曾經有個人在《內安法令》下度過多年鐵窗生涯，先是被英國人監禁，後來被馬來西亞政府關押，他説，馬來西亞獨立前後唯一的不同在於，“英國獄警每天早上會笑呵呵地走過來跟獄友們道聲早安。”

1957年8月31日，馬來亞聯合邦從英國獨立

快進到2019年，香港修訂逃犯條例，擬允許向中國內地引渡刑事案件嫌疑人，結果引發了爭議和國際關注。

香港和外界的關切點在於，不論是香港居民、外國人還是中國公民，只要是內地通緝的逃犯，都可能被引渡到內地。而香港人寧願上香港法庭，也不願意在內地受審，他們對香港的英式法庭更有信心——因為它繼承了英國的法律系統，法官和律師大多也是英國培訓出來的。

他們的疑慮固然是可以理解的，但究竟有多少反對者是打心眼裏覺得自己可能被引渡到內地受審的，還要打一個問號。

更具有諷刺意義的是，英國殖民政府和許多政府一樣，也把法律當作一種常用工具，來鞏固其對香港的控制，而控制權掌握在少數特權階層手裏。

美國法律專家理查德·丹尼爾·克萊恩詳細描寫過港英時期的法律系統，“在某種意義上來看，英國人制定了兩套法律，一套適用於歐洲人，一套適用於中國人。他們通過立法確保中國人不得居住在香港最黃金的地段，這些地方是英國人希望獨佔的飛地。

“在這片98%人口都是中國人的土地上，官方語言是英語。

“政府公署不允許使用中文。

“管制民眾行為的法律統統以英文寫就，而這是一門絕大多數香港本地人不懂的語言。

“在其他英國殖民地早已爭取到獨立的情況下，香港的中國人竟然沒有發展出成規模的民主獨立運動，這個令人驚訝失敗證明了英國法律的成功，後者達到了它在這個有600萬居民的小島上延續殖民統治的目標。”

理查德·丹尼爾·克萊恩論文《亞洲背景下的法律和種族主義：對港英統治的分析》

已故的斯坦福大學歷史學者陳明銶曾在一篇法律評論報告裏寫道：“對多數香港人而言，維持現有的法律系統十分重要，因為它關係到後殖民時期香港行政特區根據‘一國兩制’規則在中國主權之下享有的高度自主權。

“然而，這種廣泛存在的認識是有瑕疵的，理由很簡單：香港今天的法律系統存在嚴重缺陷。它不但在根源上是外來的……顯著不同於中華人民共和國的法律系統，並且存在缺陷與不足。”

港英時期，不論抗議採取何等形式，都從來沒有被真正重視過。實際上人們也沒有發起什麼抗議，因為在長達一個半世紀的殖民統治時期，英國不允許香港選舉。

直到迴歸之前兩年，也就是1995年，香港立法局才終於進行了議員選舉，那是港英時期第一次也是最後一次立法局全面選舉。民主自由果然名不虛傳。

1995年香港立法局選舉結果總覽

在所有政府機構高級崗位都被白人佔據的日子裏，沒有香港人站出來抗議，儘管不少資質良好的香港本地公務員的英語水平甚至超過了他們的上司。

比如香港警隊一直由英國人領導，而且我們也知道70年代他們有多腐敗，可香港人反對過嗎？更直白一點地説，他們吱過聲嗎？

説句公道話，確實是英國人把香港從荒蕪的小島建設成國際都會，他們留下了運作良好、備受國際社會信任的行政體系。

但是，在1997年香港迴歸中國那一刻起，英國人對香港的責任已經終結了。英國現在沒有任何權利對中國指手畫腳，告訴中國人應該做什麼不應該做什麼。

但為什麼，香港偏偏有一小部分人對內地懷着怨恨的情緒，卻渴望由英國統治呢？

近年來，一些香港“本土派”為了抗議所謂“粗暴干預”在足球比賽上羞辱國歌，甚至用英語喊“香港不是中國”的口號。此外還有一小撮人在搞“香港迴歸聯合王國運動”，渴望再次接受英國統治，結果淪為笑柄。也還有些香港人喜歡説什麼“舊日好時光”，緬懷英國殖民統治。

如果説中國人可以從英屬馬來亞的歷史裏汲取什麼經驗的話，那就是英國人管理殖民地的手段真的很高，他們無需採取粗暴手段，卻能把殖民地的豐富資源劫掠一空。

北京方面或許可以在香港問題上採取更柔和的態度，拿出更大的耐心。時間在中國這一方，所以完全不用着急，更何況現在中國在許多其他問題上特別需要贏得國際社會的支持，因此不要冒輿論風險。

當然，香港狂徒襲警事件被內地十幾億人看在眼裏，政府當然要考慮民意。見證過蘇聯崩潰的歷史，中國領導人知道維護民族自豪感和民族尊嚴有多麼重要。當CNN或BBC的記者大談特談個人權利的時候，他們其實根本不知道中國政府和全世界華人華僑對此的看法。

1997年香港迴歸

香港人必須接受一個現實：香港主權屬於中國，而且香港的獨立性和重要性都會慢慢減弱。內地不再像過去那樣需要香港作為一個戰略性金融中心，因為北京上海等內地城市已經超過了香港。

香港人受到的另外一個打擊是，當年英國政府拒絕接受原來拿英國海外領地公民護照的350萬香港人作為英國公民。

內地方面需要下更大力氣贏得香港民心，讓他們感受到自己從根本上屬於中國和中國文化，培養他們的民族自豪感。

香港人是在與內地迥異的政治和法律環境下成長起來的，因此具有更強的自主意識，這是可以理解的。但更重要的事實是，香港人民的命運跟英國沒有半毛錢關係，但與中國緊密相連，而北京方面要解決的問題是，如何讓香港人民感受到這一點，理解這一點，並且為此感到驕傲。

最後説到引渡這件事，不要忘了美國正在爭取從英國引渡維基解密創始人朱利安·阿桑奇。阿桑奇是誰？他不過是一個揭發黑幕的記者，卻要面臨最嚴重的刑罰，據説他違反了美國《1917年反間諜法案》，但具體如何外界也不知道。

還沒完呢。美國還要從加拿大引渡華為首席財務官孟晚舟，扣在她頭上的罪名，聞起來有種莫須有的味道。

A destiny tied to China

YOU’VE got to hand it to the British because they are really the masters at the game. Anyone who has studied basic Malayan history would know that officials during colonial times merely identified themselves as advisers.

They were British civil servants, but they called the shots.

Adding insult to injury, the Malay Rulers – as the Sultans were called then – were “led” to believe they still ran the states.

Under British Malaya – a set of states on the Malay peninsula and Singapore under British rule between the 18th and 20th centuries – British colonial officials had the last say on almost everything except religion and customary matters, which they cleverly left to the palaces.

So, in theory, the Rulers held their positions, kept their perks and all royal protocols befitting royalty, but their wings were clipped.

These were the federated states, but in the case of Straits Settlement states, British governors were appointed.

So, the famous Malacca Sultanate, with its rich lineage of Sultans, found itself having a governor, a Caucasian, as did Penang and Singapore.

​

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad put it aptly when he said last week in his speech in Britain that “Malaysia is a member of the Commonwealth, but there is nothing much in common with the wealth dominated by certain countries”.

“The British acknowledged the Malay Sultans as Rulers, but the Sultans never ruled. Therefore, when they criticised us as dictators, I don’t think they really meant it,” he said.

There was more. Under British rule in the 20th century, the British introduced repressive laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), used against communist insurgents.

Under the ISA, a person could be held for 60 days in solitary confinement and up to two years’ extension without trial.

Despite this, the British told the world, with a straight face, that they taught us, the natives, principles of justice, democracy and fairness, and that we all cried when they abandoned us when the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941, and when we gained independence in 1957.

Our first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, kept the law when the Union Jack was lowered in 1957, which marked our independence.

Not many Malaysians are aware that the British imposed the ISA. Of course, during that era, only the radical left-wingers, with communist tendencies, were detained.

One ISA detainee, who was imprisoned under the British and then under the Malaysian government, said: “With the British guards, they would cheerily come every morning and wished the detainees a good day.” That was the difference.

Fast forward to 2019 and the massive turnout in Hong Kong against the controversial extradition Bill, with proposed amendments allowing for criminal suspects to be sent to China, has made international news.

It has prompted concern in Hong Kong and elsewhere that anyone from the city’s residents to foreign and Chinese nationals living or travelling through the international financial hub could be at risk if they were wanted by Beijing.

Basically, Hong Kong residents would rather face HK courts than be deported to mainland China.

Many have no faith in China’s judicial system compared to the British-style HK courts, which inherited the British legal system, and where most of the judges and lawyers are also British-trained.

The HK people can’t be blamed for their anger and suspicion since the international community has read of Chinese nationals being short-changed, or even neglected by the courts in the pursuit of justice.

And we can even read of income tax defaulters, under investigation, being hauled off to undisclosed locations, while dissidents have been taken away, and disappeared without a trace.

This bad press, verified or otherwise, would have scared many people, even though one wonders how many of these HK protesters believe, in their hearts of hearts, that they would ever get arrested and sent to China.

But the irony is that under British rule in HK, like many governments, the British widely used the law as a tool to consolidate control of Hong Kong in the hands of a privileged minority.

Legal expert Richard Daniel Klien wrote that “the British enacted legislation which in some respects instituted two sets of laws – one for the Europeans and another for the Chinese. Laws were passed to ensure no Chinese would live in the most desirable parts of Hong Kong, which the British wished to preserve as their exclusive enclaves.

“In a land in which ninety-eight per cent of the population were Chinese, English was the official language.

“The Chinese language was not permitted to be used in government offices.

“Laws regulating conduct were written exclusively in English, a language which the vast majority of the population could not understand.

“The astonishing truth of the failure of the Hong Kong Chinese to develop a significant pro-democracy or pro-independence movement, while other British colonies obtained independence long ago, testifies to the success of the British laws in accomplishing the goal of continued colonial rule over this land of six million inhabitants.”

MK Chan wrote in a law review report that “to most people in Hong Kong, the preservation of the existing legal system is of crucial importance to the high degree of autonomy the post-colonial Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is supposed to enjoy under Chinese sovereignty according to the “One Country, Two Systems” formula.

“However, this widely shared perception is flawed for one simple reason: the legal system in Hong Kong today has its own serious defects. It is not only alien in origin,” and “markedly different from the legal system in the People’s Republic of China but also defective and inadequate”.

No protest has gained voice, neither through yellow shirts nor umbrellas. And no protests were staged because the British didn’t allow elections during the colonial rule from over a century and a half.

The 1995 Hong Kong Legislative Council election for members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong was only finally held that year – it was the first and last fully elected legislative election in the colonial period before the nation was returned to China two years later. So much for democracy and freedom.

No HK resident protested that only the white men could hold top posts in government bodies, places where there were many qualified HK civil servants who could speak and write in English better than their superiors.

To put it bluntly, there was not even a squeak – and we know how corrupt the HK police were in the 1970s – about the force being headed by Britons.

To be fair, the British transformed HK from a barren island to an international hub, with a working administration system that has won the confidence of the international community.

However, the responsibility of the British ended in 1997 when HK was handed over to the Chinese. It has lost its right to tell the Chinese what to do.

But what has brought this resentment towards China, from HK Chinese people, and perhaps, even a yearning, for British rule?

Not long ago, it was reported that some localists had taken to thumbing their nose at “China’s heavy-handed meddling” by waving the British flag at football matches, booing the Chinese anthem and chanting “We are Hong Kong! Hong Kong is not China!” in English.

Reports have also surfaced about a small Hong Kong-United Kingdom Reunification Campaign, which angled for a return to British rule but ultimately dismissed as quirky.

Then there are HK people who talk about the “good times” under British rule.

If there is a history lesson which the Chinese can learn from British Malaya, it’s that the Brits administered their colonies well and without the need for any heavy-handed approaches, even as they robbed these colonies of their rich minerals.

Reports of Beijing’s transgressions in the territory, such as the kidnapping by mainland agents of local booksellers, or the National People’s Congress purportedly stepping into local judicial cases, won’t win the hearts of the HK people.

Beijing must put on a softer face and display plenty of patience in dealing with HK. There is really no rush for China, especially with risking an international black eye at a time when it can ill afford to do so.

Yes, China is concerned about how its billion people will react if they see these hot-headed HK protesters abusing policemen.

The lessons from the breakup of the Soviet Union – and the wounded pride and dignity that follows – are always etched in the minds of Chinese leaders.

When CNN and BBC reporters talk about individual rights, they have no idea what Beijing or even the Chinese diaspora think.

But the people of HK must also accept the harsh reality – HK is now China’s sovereignty, and more and more of its independence, or even importance, will slowly fade away.

China doesn’t need HK as much as it used to as a strategic financial hub, because Chinese cities, including Beijing and Shanghai, have even eclipsed the former island nation. No matter how big or how long these protests run for, China knows the HK people don’t have the stamina, because rent and bills need to be paid, and protest sittings on streets don’t last anyway.

And the other blow is the British government’s refusal to grant citizenship to the 3.5 million Hongkongers born there under the British flag.

China needs to work harder on winning hearts and minds, and to make the HK people feel they are a fundamental part of China, and Chinese culture and pride.

HK people have always been independent because they were brought up differently and under different sets of political and legal systems, and that must be understood. There is no need to ramp through any laws, indicating that the HK people are unhappy.

The destiny of the HK people lies with China, and not Britain, but the challenge for Beijing is to make the people of HK feel those sentiments and be proud of it.

And speaking of extradition, let’s not forget that the US is also seeking to get WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange extradited from the UK for alleged crimes under the Espionage Act 1917, of which remains unclear.

He is the first journalist to have the book thrown at him for whistleblowing.

That’s not all. The US wants Huawei chief financial office Sabrina Meng Wanzhou to be extradited from Canada over charges which smell suspiciously like trumped up accusations.