History Books are “Silenced”?

 

History is taught differently in schools these days (and this is the view of historian Ranjit Singh Malhi). And these includes: 

-Orang Asli Were Here First — But Malaysia’s Textbooks Refuse to Admit It 

-The Original Owners ( Orang Asli ) of Malaysia Completely Erased from Our School Textbooks 

- Parameswara Never Converted to Islam in 1414 

- How Malaysian Textbooks Tried to Delete the Chinese Contribution to Malaysia 

- Yap Ah Loy: The Man Who Built Kuala Lumpur But Was Erased from History 

- Tin Mining, Agriculture, KL — The Massive Chinese Role Malaysian Textbooks Hid 

- 750,000 Indians Died Building Malaysia — But Textbooks Don’t Even Mention Them 

- South Indians Built Modern Malaysia — Why Are They Erased from History? 

- The Forgotten Indian Slaves Who Built Malaysia’s Roads, Rails & Economy 

 

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org 

Unfortunately, since 1996, young Malaysians have been learning a form of ‘government-sanctioned history’. The problem of historical distortion extends beyond school textbooks, beginning with the Form One volume in 2016 and the Form Five volume in 2020. The Form Two school history textbook (2017, page 82) perpetuates the myth that Parameswara converted to Islam in 1414. Several ethno-nationalist historians go further, asserting that Parameswara, upon conversion, adopted the name Megat Iskandar Shah. This claim collapses under the weight of historical evidence. 

As stated by the late Emeritus Professor Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim in his book Malay Society: Transformation and Democratisation, "It is almost certain that his [Parameswara’s] son succeeded him in 1414, assuming the title of Megat Iskandar Shah." Indeed, the Ming Shih-lu (reliable Ming records) state explicitly that Megat Iskandar Shah came to Emperor Yung-lo’s court on 5 October 1414 and declared that his father, Parameswara, had died. Leading scholars including OW Wolters, CH Wake, Mary Turnbull, and BW and LY Andaya (besides Sejarah Melayu) concur that the first Melaka ruler to embrace Islam in the 1430s was Seri Maharaja, who assumed the name Muhammad Shah. 

The phenomenal role played by Yap Ah Loy in developing Kuala Lumpur has been virtually silenced in our history textbooks. Worse still, two local historians have claimed, despite clear-cut and contradictory evidence, that Raja Abdullah was the founder of Kuala Lumpur and that the town originated and developed as a Malay settlement. Contemporary ‘people on the spot’ – including Frank Swettenham, who later became the Resident of Selangor in 1882, and William Hornaday, an American zoologist who visited Kuala Lumpur in 1878 – tell a different story. So do earlier history textbooks, such as the Form Four history textbook published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1979 and Standard Four History textbook published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1981. 

Official records, including the 1879 Police Census of Kuala Lumpur and the 1959 Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council publication, together with the works of leading authorities on Kuala Lumpur’s early history such as JM Gullick and SM Middlebrook, all converge on two critical and indisputable facts: 

Kuala Lumpur originated and developed primarily as a Chinese township, and Yap Ah Loy (third Kapitan Cina, 1868–1885) was primarily responsible for its development. 

According to Frank Swettenham, a British colonial administrator, Kuala Lumpur in 1872 was “a purely Chinese village, consisting of two rows of adobe-built dwellings thatched with palm leaves”.  In a similar vein, the 1879 Police Census of Selangor reveals that Kuala Lumpur’s population stood at 2,330, of whom 82 per cent were Chinese. 

Raja Abdullah’s (the district chief of Klang) only claim to being the founder of Kuala Lumpur rests on the incidental fact that he sent 87 Chinese miners in 1857 to mine tin ore in Ampang, which was a different district altogether from Kuala Lumpur. As stated by JM Gullick, Kuala Lumpur grew from the settlement established in 1859 by the first Kapitan Cina of Kuala Lumpur, Hiu Siew, and his business partner Ah Sze, near the confluence of the Klang and Gombak rivers (formerly Old Market Square and now Medan Pasar). Significantly, the Kuala Lumpur Municipal Council celebrated Kuala Lumpur’s 100th anniversary in 1959, not in 1957. 

Perhaps one of the most serious shortcomings of our school history textbooks is their denial of the historical role and significance of the Orang Asli. There is no acknowledgment of them as the original inhabitants or “sons of the soil” of Peninsular Malaysia. 

Nor is there mention of their crucial role in early international trade as collectors of forest produce, their service as porters and guides, their appointment as Penghulus and their role as the fighting force during the Melaka Sultanate, and the historical fact that Minangkabau immigrants in Negeri Sembilan married Orang Asli women to establish land rights through the female line. 

Additionally, Malaya’s Indonesian population (mainly Javanese, Banjarese, Sumatrans, Bugis, and Boyanese or Baweanese) increased from approximately 30,000 in 1901 to about 240,000 in 1931. 

The ‘government-sanctioned history’ also downplays the profound and enduring impact of Hindu-Buddhist influence on Malay statecraft, coronation ceremonies of Malay rulers, language, literature, and customs. As stated by Ismail Hamid in his book Masyarakat dan Budaya Melayu (1988, page 55), “… kebudayaan Hindu telah meninggalkan beberapa kesan dalam setiap bidang kehidupan orang Melayu hingga dewasa ini”. 

The textbooks have also omitted the pioneering role of the Chinese in nineteenth-century commercial agriculture and minimized their central contribution to the development of Malaya’s tin mining industry. A glaring and misleading error appears in the Form Three history textbook (2018, page 140), which states that the British cultivated various commercial crops, including pepper and gambier. In reality, pepper and gambier were cultivated largely by the Chinese in Johor in the mid-nineteenth century. Equally alarming, instead of giving due credit to Chinese entrepreneurs and miners, the Form Three history textbook (2018, page 212) alludes that Long Jaafar, the territorial chief of Larut, was primarily responsible for the Federated Malay States (FMS) becoming the largest tin producer in the world. The undeniable truth is that Long Jaafar died in 1857, whereas the FMS became the world’s largest tin producer only towards the end of the nineteenth century. 

Finally, our history textbooks have largely marginalized the pivotal role of South Indian labour in the development of the rubber industry, which became Malaya’s principal revenue earner from 1916 and remained so for several decades thereafter. Equally glaring is the total absence of any acknowledgment of the indispensable contribution of South Indian workers to the construction of Malaya’s physical infrastructure – its roads, railways, bridges, ports, airports, and government buildings. As noted by Kernial Singh Sandhu, a leading authority on Indians in Malaya, it is estimated that more than 750,000 Indians may have perished in the process of developing modern Malaya and opening up treacherous jungle tracts for rubber cultivation. 

Historical omissions, distortions, and half-truths are not harmless mistakes; they are ‘intellectual crimes’.  Enough is enough. It is time for all right-thinking Malaysians, regardless of ethnicity or background, to stand united and demand better. Our children deserve an education grounded in truth, evidence, and inclusivity. Only by teaching an honest and inclusive history can we build a shared national identity, restore trust in our institutions, and secure a just and united future for our beloved nation. 

May God bless Malaysia – a nation founded on unity in diversity.

 

Reference:

They Silenced Orang Asli, Indians & Chinese – What They Don’t Want Your Kids to Know About Malaysian History, Ranjit Singh Malhi, The Coverage, 6 May 2026

Leadership is Influence!

 

Great Leaders don’t just manage performance—they shape how people experience themselves at work. When someone feels truly seen, heard, and valued, something shifts. Confidence grows. Trust deepens. Ownership rises.

 

People don’t show up at their best because they have to— they show up because they want to. That’s the essence of coaching leadership. It’s not about having all the answers but asking the questions that unlock insight. Not about directing every move but creating space for growth. Not about building dependence but strengthening capability.

 

Leadership, at its core, is influence. And the most powerful influence isn’t control— it’s how people feel about their own ability to succeed. When people feel seen, they contribute more. When they feel heard, they engage more. When they feel valued, they stretch further. When they feel respected, they bring their whole selves. And when this becomes consistent— teams don’t just perform… they thrive. So, here’s the real question:

 

When people leave your team, are they more confident, more capable, and more ready for what’s next… because of you?

 

Reference:

Leadership is Influence, Not Control by Cythia Ooi, post in Linkedin

Happy at Work, Tired at Heart?

 

Most Malaysian workers report feeling happy at work, but that sense of satisfaction is increasingly tempered by stress and burnout. This is according to Jobstreet by SEEK’s latest Workplace Happiness Index. The survey, based on responses from around 1,000 working adults aged 18 to 64, found that 70% of Malaysians feel somewhat or extremely happy in their jobs. A similar proportion said they feel valued, while 68% described their work as fulfilling. However, these positive indicators are offset by deeper concerns about workplace pressure and fatigue.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

 

Despite a relatively strong labour market with steady job opportunities and low unemployment, three in 10 workers said they feel either unhappy or neutral about their jobs, highlighting persistent gaps in overall workplace satisfaction. For many Malaysians, happiness at work is rooted in day-to-day fundamentals. The survey found that employees are most satisfied with their workplace environment (69%), colleagues (65%), and daily responsibilities (65%).

 

Predictable routines, supportive teams, and a sense of ownership over tasks contribute significantly to positive workplace experiences. However, stress remains a key issue. Only 36% of respondents said they are satisfied with their stress levels, while 41% reported feeling burnt out or exhausted by their jobs.

 

The data also showed a strong link between burnout and dissatisfaction, with unhappy workers twice as likely to experience burnout compared to those who are satisfied. Among those who are unhappy at work, 71% said improving work-life balance would increase their happiness, second only to higher pay.

 

This suggests that unmanaged stress not only affects individual wellbeing but may also have wider implications for productivity, absenteeism, and employee retention. Jobstreet by SEEK Malaysia managing director Nicholas Lam said the findings point to a deeper dynamic shaping workplace satisfaction.

 

While competitive salaries remain essential for attracting and retaining talent, employees are more likely to remain engaged when they find meaning in their work and feel connected to broader organisational goals. The report also found notable differences across age groups. Gen Z workers reported lower levels of happiness and higher stress, reflecting the pressures of early career development and the need to establish themselves in the workforce. They are also more likely to say that reducing stress would significantly improve their wellbeing, compared to millennials and Gen X employees.

 

Workplace experiences also vary by industry. Employees in Professional Services and Construction reported the highest levels of happiness at 78%, while those in the Public Sector, Industrial sectors, and Retail, Hospitality and Sports recorded lower levels of satisfaction, reflecting challenges related to workload, recognition, and flexibility.

 

The findings suggest that improving workplace happiness will require a more holistic approach. Beyond pay, organisations must create environments that foster purpose, reduce burnout, and respond to the evolving needs of a diverse workforce.

 

Reference:

Happy at work, tired at heart: 7 in 10 Malaysians say they are happy—but burnout persists, Bernie Yeo, Focus Malaysia, 10 April 2026

Battersea is Now Ombak Kerugian!

 

Few annals in development keep on returning to haunt the living than the legacy and legend of the Battersea Power Station project. An iconic London landmark on the banks of the Thames which has sucked some of Malaysia’s premier funds and land companies.

 

The latest in that tragic tale is that the CEO of developer Battersea Power Station Development Company or BPSDC, who has been fired.  This was alleged that it was done because the company had effectively overstated the value of its assets by a “few hundred million pounds”.

It should be noted that in 2013 when the project was announced, it was supposed to have been finished by 2025. But it’s still alive and kicking. That should set sirens screaming louder than an official motorcade in Malaysia.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Power_Station

 

The entire development was worth RM53 billion over a decade ago and probably costs a lot more now. And it is owned by three icons from Malaysia, SP Setia and Sime Darby Property (SDP) with a 40 per cent stake each and Employees Provident Fund or EPF with the remaining 20 per cent. To top it up, major stakes in SP Setia and SDP are owned by national unit trust operator Permodalan Nasional Bhd or PNB, which owns some 49 per cent of SP Setia and some 45-47 per cent of SDP according to recent reports.

 

The Battersea project dates back to 2013 when it was launched with much fanfare in London, the opening graced by no less than British Prime Minister then, David Cameron, and London mayor and subsequently British prime minister Boris Johnson who were feted by Liew.

 

Essentially, EPF, SDP and SP Setia are likely to shoulder losses of some RM250 million a quarter or RM1 billion a year from a 5-year rental guarantee at Battersea. The guarantees, reportedly for a period of five years, were given by the Battersea Power Station redevelopment project in London to buyers to encourage sales but the company was saddled with a huge payment for income not met by purchasers. It turns out the guarantee may have been given to a holding company owned 65 per cent by EPF and 35 per cent by PNB which bought the commercial development of Battersea for 1.58-billion-pound sterling. The rest, mainly residential, remained with the development company.

 

The Financial Times reported in March 2026 the CEO was dismissed because he flagged that properties owned by the Battersea development company were overvalued by a few hundred million pounds. The case is now before a London tribunal for wrongful dismissal.  The development company denied the allegations.

 

Quality of assets is a rather subjective matter and different people have different things to say about it. But one may ask why a career professional who has a long and distinguished career in other places will make such serious allegations against Battersea if it is not warranted.

 

Why not do a forensic audit for public consumption? After all, the key investors are pension/investment funds? Otherwise, we have more speculation and less light!

 

Reference:

The ghost of Battersea revisits, P. Gunasegaram, Kinibiz Online, 31 March 2026

Is M40 Invisible?

 

Too wealthy for government subsidised housing yet priced out of the soaring luxury market. Referred to as the invisible middle class, Malaysia’s middle 40% (M40) households form the backbone of the workforce, yet their housing realities are increasingly strained. Within this group, the lower-middle tiers are commonly referred to as M1 and M2. They are also the most financially vulnerable. 

During the pandemic, around 20% of M40 households experienced income declines that pushed many into the bottom 40% (B40) category. Although the M40 makes up 40% of households, it holds only about 38.2% of national income, compared to 45.1% for the top 20% (T20), according to the Statistics Department (DOSM). 

In urban centres such as Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, this pressure is amplified. A large share of income is absorbed by housing, transport and childcare, leaving limited room for savings or upward mobility. They are, in many ways, stuck in the middle. Too qualified for subsidised schemes like Rumawip and Perumahan Rakyat 1Malaysia or PR1MA, yet unable to sustain RM700,000-plus urban housing. 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

For the average household, the mathematics of property no longer adds up. It is becoming increasingly misaligned with income reality. DOSM reports that the median monthly income for the lower M40 is around RM5,250. Based on the median multiple rule, affordable housing for this group should ideally fall between RM300,000 and RM450,000. 

The Property Market Report 2025 by the National Property Information Centre (Napic) shows the national average house price has risen to RM502,922. In major urban centres, the gap is even wider still. Kuala Lumpur has shot past RM810,000 while Selangor averages RM567,505. Buyers are worried because this mismatch is leading to a structural imbalance that will resonate years down the line. 

Napic data shows a 31.6% rise in unsold completed units as of late 2025. While 52% of transactions are still going strong below RM300,000, new supply is still skewing toward higher-priced, high-density developments with high ownership costs. Monthly maintenance fees today can range between RM300 and RM500 per month, though this can easily rise to over RM700 in luxury developments. This quickly becomes a tipping point between mortgage approval and rejection. For many households, affordability is not only about loan eligibility but about sustaining long-term ownership. 

Many buyers are venturing out from city centres in search of affordability. Locations such as Semenyih, Nilai and Rawang offer good entry points in the RM300,000 and RM400,000 range. However, these savings tend to get offset by longer commutes, higher fuel costs and increased vehicle maintenance. 

Budget 2026 expanded the Housing Credit Guarantee Scheme, allocating up to RM10bil to support first-time buyers and gig workers. Developers have also done their part in introducing step-up financing models that reduce any early repayment burdens. These are all done in anticipation of income growth. However, financing is still a problem. 

Recent findings from the Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia (Rehda) show that 72% of developers report financing-related difficulties among buyers, with end-financing loan rejections reaching as high as 31% to 45% for properties priced between RM500,000 and RM700,000. 

Malaysia’s housing market is no longer grappling with oversupply issues alone. For a large segment of the M40, ownership is increasingly filtered through financing barriers, recurring costs and structural affordability constraints. In that sense, the question is no longer whether housing exists for the middle class but whether the middle class still exists within the current housing system. 

Reference:

The invisible M40, Samantha Wong, The Star, 3 May 2026

 

 

Change Governments but Nothing Changes

 

Malaysia has changed governments several times. New faces, new coalitions, new promises. Every time it’s the same thing. This time will be different. This time, things will improve. This time, the system will be corrupt free. However, if you ask people on the ground, the answer is simple. Nothing much has changed. 

Almost every major party has been in power. When they were outside, they spoke strongly. They pointed out corruption, unfairness, and a weak leadership. They said they would fix it. Then, they got into power, and somehow, the same issues are still there. So, people start asking. Why does corruption still feel selective? Why do some cases move fast while others go quiet? Why do certain people always seem protected, no matter who is in charge?

 

Source: https://simple.wikipedia.org

We have MACC. We have the attorney-general. They are supposed to protect the system. But when decisions are inconsistent or not clearly explained, people do not know what to believe anymore. It slowly becomes a feeling that the system depends on who you are, not what you did. 

At the same time, many on the ground have become more realistic. People know corruption cannot disappear overnight. But what they expect is fairness and responsibility. If those in power benefit, then the people should also see clear improvements in their daily lives. That is where the frustration comes in when there is no visible return to the rakyat. 

Politics is in the same rut. Race and religion. Every time things get difficult, these topics come back. It is easier to play with emotions than to solve real problems. Politicians look strong on social media but on the ground, people are still waiting for real change. It feels like more effort is put into the image than into showing results. Many are already talking about the next election instead of fixing today’s problems. So, we do “backdoor” strategies to gain power to do good? Absolute nonsense! 

Look at daily life. Go buy groceries. Everything is more expensive. Go to a government hospital. You wait for hours. Talk to parents. They worry whether the education system is really preparing their children. Look at your own salary. It is not increasing the same way your expenses are. Try making a simple report to fix a road or drainage issue. It can take months. Follow up again and again, still no clear action. Even local councils sometimes seem unsure who to follow. Should they listen to the lawmaker from the ruling side or the MP from the opposition? In the end, nothing moves. 

This is the real Malaysia. 

We are told the economy is improving but for many people, every month feels tighter. You pay your bills, manage your commitments, and hope nothing unexpected happens. Savings are not growing. Planning for the future feels harder. Many on the ground are no longer thinking about progress. They are merely in survival mode. 

Many Ministers need to step out more. Not stay in Putrajaya offices looking at the lake view or go to KL with police siren wailing! The real situation is not in reports or presentations. It is outside, on the ground. 

And this is why people are frustrated. Because no matter who is in power, the same basic issues are not fixed. Education is still the same. The tax system still feels heavy on the same group of people. Public hospitals are still overcrowded. These are not new problems. Every government knows this. Also, people see tax money being used for things outside the country (like Gaza) while many local issues are left unresolved. When people here are struggling and asking for help, it raises questions about priorities. And they are told to tighten their belts, when they have none! 

The opposition is not helping either. It talks, but it does not give confidence. It points out problems, but people are not sure it can do better. It is not united and that shows. When both sides are not strong, the rakyat is the one stuck in the middle. Elections today also feel different. It has become almost like a festival. People go out to vote, take pictures and share on social media. The deeper meaning of voting seems to be fading. Choices are often influenced by popularity or religion rather than real policies or long-term direction. This is not something small. It is something serious that the country needs to reflect on. 

If every choice gives the same feeling, then the problem is not just the leaders. We keep changing governments but for the people on the ground, life still feels the same. 

Why can’t they fix small things first – re-tar the roads; fix the potholes; give essentials to the poor; provide shelter; listen more and talk less; act more than shout about maruah or halal or bangsa – when you are hungry there is no more maruah to beg or to steal – you just do it and face the consequences. 

Then do other more difficult things – fix education, health, refugees, workers/maid levies (RM15,000 is out of this world for M40); cost of living; corruption and many more.

But, no, every Minister is looking at pensions – as an MP, as a Minister and/or as an ADUN. If money is your motivation to be in politics, then be a Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, not a rent-seeker with APs in hand. When can we stop this carousel? When the music dies? 

Reference:

LETTER | We keep changing govts but nothing changes for us, Thanesh Tamalmani, Malaysiakini, 29 April 2026

Is Langkawi “Closed for Business”?

 

There is a certain genius—almost artistic—in how we manage Langkawi. Not the kind that builds a world-class destination, but the sort that slowly, methodically, and with admirable consistency, squeezes the life out of one.

 

First, it was the moral housekeeping. The quiet tightening around alcohol sales, the raised eyebrows at beach attire—as though tourists flying in from Germany or Australia might suddenly develop a fondness for modest swimwear upon landing. One could almost hear the unspoken marketing slogan: “Langkawi—Now with Less Fun.” But tourists, being a forgiving species (and often armed with prepaid hotel bookings), still came. They adapted. They drank less publicly, dressed more cautiously, and told themselves the sunsets were worth it. And then came the masterstroke: make it harder to get there.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org

 

The recent reduction in ferry services—from five daily trips to three—has all the elegance of a self-inflicted wound. For an island where, by admission, about 70% of visitors arrive by sea, this is not just a logistical adjustment.

 

Imagine running a restaurant, a souvenir stall, or a modest homestay in Kuah, only to discover that your customer base has been quietly throttled—not by lack of demand, but by lack of seats on a boat. It is the kind of policy contradiction that deserves a case study. On one hand, we speak earnestly about boosting domestic tourism, encouraging Malaysians to rediscover their own backyard. On the other, we ration the very ferries that make such rediscovery possible.

 

The ferry operators have their reasons. Rising diesel costs, operational sustainability—perfectly rational explanations in isolation. But public infrastructure, especially one that underpins an entire island economy, is not meant to operate like a boutique startup delicately balancing its books. It is, or should be, a lifeline.

 

One wonders what the long-term vision is. Is Langkawi meant to be a vibrant international destination, competing with Phuket or Bali? Or is it slowly being rebranded—unofficially, of course—into something more restrained, more “compliant,” and ultimately, less visited? Because tourism, inconveniently, thrives on ease. Easy access, easy movement, easy enjoyment. Start inserting friction—whether moral, logistical, or financial—and tourists will do what tourists do best: go somewhere else. And there is no shortage of “somewhere else.”

The real tragedy here is not that Langkawi will collapse overnight. It won’t. Decline, like all well-managed things or buildings in this country, will be gradual. Quiet. Explained away with statistics and temporary measures. Until one day, the island that once bustled with energy will simply feel… dead! Not overcrowded. Not chaotic.

 

Just… dead which, in tourism terms, is often a polite way of saying: R.I.P.

 

Reference:

#EiTahuTak | OPINION | Langkawi: The Island That Put Up a “Closed for Business” Sign—One Policy at a Time, Mihar Dias, Newswav, 25 Apr 2026