I spent close six years in primary school growing up under a Malay teacher who kept emphasising to us how Malays are inherently born with the tendency to be indolent, lazy and generally unproductive. Along the way, she introduced us to texts such as “The Malay Dilemma” by the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, detailing how inbreeding amongst the Malay community have given birth to a civilisation that is genetically inferior, inherently stupid and should not be expected to be on par with their p I spent close six years in primary school growing up under a Malay teacher who kept emphasising to us how Malays are inherently born with the tendency to be indolent, lazy and generally unproductive. Along the way, she introduced us to texts such as “The Malay Dilemma” by the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, detailing how inbreeding amongst the Malay community have given birth to a civilisation that is genetically inferior, inherently stupid and should not be expected to be on par with their peers that descended from East Asia.
This is the justification, according to her, why Malays must make the effort to work even harder than other races to avoid this genetic anomaly that we have been cursed with. It suffices to say that “The Myth of the Lazy Native” is a book that I should have picked up much earlier on in life.The construct of Malays as being a lazy community has sadly saddled itself deep into the crevices of our subconscious. Even amongst Malays, there is ample evidence in popular literature to show that we have largely taken on the belief that we are an inherently backward community.But Syed Hussein Alatas shows us in this critique that here was upon of time in history where the Malays were admired for our economic finesse. Malays built the largest ships, were excellent merchants and spread our influence, culture and literature far and wide beyond this region. In 1518, Duarte Barbossa described the city of Malacca as “the richest sea port with the greatest number of wholesale merchants and abundance of shipping and trade in the whole word”. In a report dated 1637 to Holland on the situation in Makassar, Dutch merchant Hendrik Kerckringh described the Malays as people held in high-esteem and of great means who developed properties in the area.But progressive colonial invasions by the Portuguese, Dutch and British marked the start of the decline in Malay economic activity. Crippled by forced monopolies and relocations, the Malay merchant class receded away from town centres into the rural areas taking on subsistence agriculture as a primary form of sustenance.
In preferring rural agriculture over colonial industries and the colonial brand of capitalism Malays are branded as lazy, indolent and unproductive – especially when compared with indentured labourers from China and India. These constructs endured and evolved over the centuries to the form it comes in today – a general acceptance that Malays are lazy in comparison to other races.This book constitutes in the author’s own words, “an effort to correct a one-sided colonial view of the Asian native and his society”. Scholars of colonialism, post-colonialism and sociology will find this book to be of immense interest.
If you live in Thailand, one thing you'll hear from both white people and locals is that Thai people are 'lazy.' If you ask for a clarification, they'll provide some anecdote about some guy they saw once. You will leave the conversation with a dimmer view of other people's perceptions.Turns out a Malaysian scholar named Syed Alatas (who I found out about because he got name-checked by Edward Said) got these same bad vibes decades ago, and then wrote a remarkably well-written, thought-provoking b If you live in Thailand, one thing you'll hear from both white people and locals is that Thai people are 'lazy.' If you ask for a clarification, they'll provide some anecdote about some guy they saw once. You will leave the conversation with a dimmer view of other people's perceptions.Turns out a Malaysian scholar named Syed Alatas (who I found out about because he got name-checked by Edward Said) got these same bad vibes decades ago, and then wrote a remarkably well-written, thought-provoking book about it.Furthermore, Alatas is interesting not only in the way he traces the origins of the myth of the lazy native, but also in the way he analyzes the self-colonizing mindset of native leaders. He's especially unforgiving with Mahathir bin Mohamed and his 'cultural' explanations of underdevelopment. An anti-colonial short-course for Malaysians in one volume.
Fallout 4 wiki. Post-warAfter the Human-Covenant war, Misriah acquired the irreplaceable machinery that could create.In, Misriah's was to be delivered and tested on as part of. While the of shotguns were normally produced by, Misriah apparently produced a variant as well, possibly by license.were also apparently able to buy military-grade weapons, such as the BR55 and the M90, as evidenced by an advertisement for the company. Products Weapons and AmmunitionMost standard-issue weapons, such as the, the, the, the, the, the and the, were produced by Misriah Armory.
The Myth of the Lazy Native was an influential book in post-colonial studies, published a year before Edward Said's Orientalism. Syed Hussein Alatas trawls through centuries of original sources to find the sources of the persistent idea that Malays, and other native peoples, are lazy. Some of the key points that struck me were:1. At the time of first contact with Europeans, the peoples of the Nusantara were active economically and w An anti-colonial short-course for Malaysians in one volume. The Myth of the Lazy Native was an influential book in post-colonial studies, published a year before Edward Said's Orientalism. Syed Hussein Alatas trawls through centuries of original sources to find the sources of the persistent idea that Malays, and other native peoples, are lazy.
Some of the key points that struck me were:1. At the time of first contact with Europeans, the peoples of the Nusantara were active economically and were engaged in long-distance trade far beyond the archipelago on their own boats with their own capital and with the ability to defend their own interests. Ocean-going vessels, arms and munitions were manufactured locally.2. European monopoly shut down thriving multi-national trade zones, impoverishing and over centuries eliminating the indigineous trading class, eventually reducing native society to peasants and rulers.
Alatas finds clear and detailed discourse from Ibn Khaldun 700 years ago describing the ill effects of mercantile colonialism (specifically the ruler engaging directly in trade) and promoting a role for the ruler that corresponds closely to the way the trade ports of the archipelago were in fact run. Which isn't to say the sultans of the region had read Ibn Khaldun, but it does make it hard to believe the colonial regimes didn't know exactly what their policies would do to the locals.3.
Only after the region was thoroughly dominated by European powers do observations about the laziness of the locals begin to emerge.4. The heart of the matter. Laziness as used by European observers meant, and could only mean: non-cooperation with colonial exploitation.
The Malays would rather live on their own terms in their village than work under near-slavery conditions in the plantations and mines. If the labor arrangement wasn't to their satisfaction, they would simply walk off. This was not an option for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Indians who were brought in as indentured laborers, often from even more dire situations back home, and worked to death under appalling conditions until their debt was repaid.
For this, they were labelled as 'industrious'.5. By the 19th century, European observers were also recording instances of decadent, corrupt, and oppressive behavior from the hereditary Malay rulers, the sultans and rajas. Alatas makes an interesting point: under the terms of colonial domination, the local rulers were unable to conduct diplomatic relations, unable to regulate the economy, unable to wage war, unable to perform any of the functions by which their social class had distinguished itself in the past. Hollowed out and on a short leash, stagnation and slide into decadence seems more understandable.6. Alatas expresses a view I have encountered more than once, that Malaysia is at a disadvantage somehow because it did not fight a war to gain independence. Personally, I think Malaysia came out ahead from having a peaceful transfer of power, and the diplomatic skills that made that happen deserve to be honored in the national historiography. But he does make a compelling argument that there was no real ideological break between the old colonial masters and the local elite that took their place.
This brings us to the last point.7. The image of Malays as lazy has persisted to the present day because it fits the political needs of the current power structure. It works like this:Malays are lazy.Because they are lazy, they are bound to lose in unrestricted competition with Chinese Malaysians.Therefore, the Malays must elect a government that will protect them.One could argue Malaysia's reliance on imported labor for all the most wretched jobs in the country is a hold-over from the colonial system too. The Myth of the Lazy Native came out after Tun Dr Mahathir's 'The Malay Dilemma', which he scathingly critiques, but before Mahathir's rise to ultimate power. 40 years later, the myth of the lazy native is just as entrenched as ever, to the extent that it rarely needs to mentioned explicitly.1. See for Syed Hussein Alatas.2. In, I believe, Tarling's, it is mentioned that a key check to the power of the Sultan was that his people could simply sail away down the river or off to a different island if they were unhappy with his rule.
In between another read I picked up this book. While it it is not the easiest of read, I found it very compelling.
There were many pauses to reflect and at times to reread a rendering. A lengthy introduction and an even more lengthy conclusion epitomise the care taken by the author in getting across his much scholastic approach to an important phenomenon arising from an epoch in the history of the Malay Archipelago. In retrospect, I thought I should have started this note from the start of the In between another read I picked up this book. While it it is not the easiest of read, I found it very compelling.
There were many pauses to reflect and at times to reread a rendering. A lengthy introduction and an even more lengthy conclusion epitomise the care taken by the author in getting across his much scholastic approach to an important phenomenon arising from an epoch in the history of the Malay Archipelago. In retrospect, I thought I should have started this note from the start of the reading and build on it as I progressed.While there were some differences in the history of the people of the Archipelago, there are also many similarities especially during the days of colonialism. While the foreigners came and observed and formulated their opinion about the natives, the natives too had their opinion about themselves except that they were not directly expressed. Hence, ideas about the natives much of which survive till today were greatly based or influenced by what the foreigners said.The book describes the various effects of conquest by the Portuguese, Dutch, English as well as the Spaniards in the case of the Phillippines with a little more elaboration on the Malays.after all studies on the Filipinos have already been made by Rizal way back.
While the the colonials were successful in making slaves of the Filipinos and Javanese in their own countries, the Malays had succeeded in providing a wall of silent protest. Hence, indentured labours or slaves if you will, were brought in from China and India to work in the plantations and mines.The issue of national character and concept of industry and indolence are extensively researched and carefully espoused. In comparison with earlier publications that touched on similar issues viz. Revolusi Mental (Mental Revolution 1968) and The Malay Dilemma (1970), they were both motivated by politics. The former is a product of 14 authors and the title was taken from a bock and term coined by the late Sukarno of Indonesia.
The author opined that the latter is a little more intellectual it it's analysis though both are devoid of proper research. The former has many inaccuracies and devoid of intellectual depth which results in ridiculous conclusions, to say the least. In effect they were congruous with the impressions and opinions of the west and embraced western economic ideas en bloc.I was much astonished by the discourse on the disappearance of the indigenous trading class 200 years after the coming of the Portuguese and Dutch. By the time the British came, none was around. What can you say about a people who for say, five or six generations have not seen open trade? During pre-colonial days, many of the rulers were tyrannical but they did not monopolize trade in the way the colonials did.
The author added Jose Rizal's statement on the accusation of Malay indolence.' The very Europeans who accuse the peoples of the colonies of indolence (and I am no longer referring to the Spaniards but also to the Germans and Englishmen), how do they live in the tropical countries? Surrounded by many servants, never walking but riding, needing servants not only to remove their shoes but event to fan them! And nevertheless they live and eat better, work for themselves and to enrich themselves, with The author added Jose Rizal's statement on the accusation of Malay indolence.' The very Europeans who accuse the peoples of the colonies of indolence (and I am no longer referring to the Spaniards but also to the Germans and Englishmen), how do they live in the tropical countries? Surrounded by many servants, never walking but riding, needing servants not only to remove their shoes but event to fan them!
And nevertheless they live and eat better, work for themselves and to enrich themselves, with the hope of a future, free, respected, while the poor colonial, and the indolent colonial, is poorly nourished and lives without hope, toils for others, and is forced and compelled to work! The white men will reply perhaps that they are not made to suffer the rigors of the tropical climate. Man can live under any climate if he will only adapt himself to its requirements and conditions. What kills the European in the warm countries is the abuse of alcohol, the desire to live as in his own country under another sky and another sun. We the inhabitants of tropical countries, live well in northern Europe whenever we take the same precautions as the people there do.
The Europeans can also live well in the torrid zone if they would only get rid of their prejudices.' People knew more about Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad's The Malay Dilemma than Prof Syed Hussein Alatas's The Myth of the Lazy Native. Perhaps, if the late professor was a more successful politician (he founded Gerakan), than this book might have been better known. But it is Mahathir's party who won the elections. It is also Mahathir's conception of the Bumiputeras that won the ideological imagination of Malaysians.
In the end, the image of the Malays as being lazy, dependent, inferior and stupid persists People knew more about Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's The Malay Dilemma than Prof Syed Hussein Alatas's The Myth of the Lazy Native. Perhaps, if the late professor was a more successful politician (he founded Gerakan), than this book might have been better known. But it is Mahathir's party who won the elections. It is also Mahathir's conception of the Bumiputeras that won the ideological imagination of Malaysians. In the end, the image of the Malays as being lazy, dependent, inferior and stupid persists in the minds of Malaysians. To date, this is UMNO's most powerful ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) that legitimizes the current power structure, which is inherited from their British colonial masters.Prof Alatas's thesis is simple: the alleged laziness of the native population in Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines is nothing more than a colonial distortion of reality.
The natives are not lazy. It is the image of them being lazy that was being hyped up by colonial scholars, travelers, administrators and other people who have vested interest in the colonial system.
This, in turn, justifies the colonization of a supposedly 'backward' people in need of help.An interesting argument from Prof Alatas is that the native population seemed 'indolent' simply because they are unwilling to participate as dehumanized coolies within the machinery of colonial capitalism. The natives have their land to toil, and rivers to fish. They do not see the need to work for other masters when they can be masters of their own.
For their colonial masters, this is a sign of indolence. Whereas, their unwillingness to work in mines and estates is simply a sensible choice. However, from the viewpoint of economic rationality, this seemed absurd. Hence, that is the reason why wanting to live on one's own terms means being lazy and stupid in the context of colonial capitalism.In countries where the natives do partake in colonial capitalism (such as Indonesia and Philippine), they are subjugated to forced labor. Their lands are forcibly taken, and they have to work to pay off whatever debt that is being imposed upon them.
Thus, their supposed laziness is simply a mode of resistance. Why do you need to work hard if you would not enjoy the fruits of your labor? However, those who contribute to colonial literature tend to regard their 'indolence' as a sin against 'rightful' subjugation.Colonial scholars also attribute the backwardness of the natives due to the absence of an industrious merchant class.
This is certainly not true. Before the colonization of the Malay archipelago, trade centers such as Malacca, Makassar and Maluku were busy seaports attracting traders from all over the Old World. They were administrated by able sultans, and managed by local traders who are experts in their trade. However, the Dutch and the Portuguese came to dominate the trading scene in the archipelago through deceit and violence. Eventually, the local mercantile class disappeared.
The ruling class collaborate with the colonizers. And the whole colonized race went into decline as a direct result of European colonization.
Thus, they were not conquering uncivilized people, rather they are conquering civilized people who degenerated into being 'uncivilized' (or being perceived as one) through colonial oppression and manipulation.After independence, the ruling class in Malaysia, which inherited the ideological framework set up by the British, maintains the negative image of the Malays as being backward people. This is to blame the failures of post-independence government policies to the supposed weakness of the Malays themselves. Also, by keeping alive this image, they are able to subjugate the populace into believing that the Malay masses are dependent on their feudal overlords to survive from being 'oppressed' by other races, such as the Chinese. To maintain their legitimacy, the Malaysian ruling class portray themselves as fighters for independence, when in fact, they are simply continuing the unfinished job left behind by the British.It's kind of sad that it is easier for me to attain a hard copy of this book in a foreign country, and not in Malaysian public libraries. I sincerely wish every young Malaysian who are concerned with how things are to read this book.
Beneath every supposed 'common sense' assumptions, like the weakness of the Malays, there are ideological roots that can be unearthed. This book should served as an impetus for young Malaysians to always, always question on why things remain as they are, and what can be done to change that? Syed Hussein Alatas (September 17, 1928 – January 23, 2007) was a Malaysian academician, sociologist, founder of social science organizations, and former politician. He was once Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya in the 1980s, and formed the Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan). Syed Hussein wrote several books on corruption, multi-racialism, imperialism, and intellectual captivity as Syed Hussein Alatas (September 17, 1928 – January 23, 2007) was a Malaysian academician, sociologist, founder of social science organizations, and former politician.
Penjajahan British Di Tanah Melayu
He was once Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya in the 1980s, and formed the Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan). Syed Hussein wrote several books on corruption, multi-racialism, imperialism, and intellectual captivity as part of the colonial, and post colonial, project, the most famous being The Myth of the Lazy Native.
Submitted By piqakadirWords 1738Pages 7JELASKAN BAGAIMANA PENJAJAHAN BRITISH MENCORAKKAN BENTUK MASYARAKAT DI TANAH MELAYU.Malaysia yang dikenali Tanah Melayu pada suatu ketika dulu pernah dijajah oleh tiga negara yang berbeza iaitu Portugis, Belanda,British dan Jepun. Penjajahan mereka bukan sahaja membawa kesan yang besar terhadap politik dan ekonomi di negara kita malah sosial dan budaya juga mengalami perubahan yang besar. Dasar- dasar penjajah terhadap negara kita telah membawa ramai pendatang asing ke negara kita.Kedatangan pendatang-pendatang asing ketika zaman itu memberi perubahan kepada bentuk masyarakat kita secara kekal sehingga ke hari ini.Bentuk masyarakat kita yang wujud pada hari ini adalah masyarakat majmuk.Terdapat tiga bangsa yang paling utama iaitu Melayu, India dan Cina. Menurut Kamus Dewan, konsep masyarakat membawa maksud kumpulan manusia yang menetap bersama-sama disuatu tempat dengan mengikut aturan dan cara tertentu dan masyarakat ini pula terdiri daripada beberapa kaum atau bangsa. Oleh itu, gabungan kedua-dua istilah masyarakat majmuk membawa maksud `satu kumpulan manusia yang terdiri daripada pelbagai rumpun bangsa telah membentuk satu kesatuaan, khususnya dalam aspek politik, sosial dan ekonomi di sesuatu tempat bagi membentuk satu kumpulan yang bersatu padu’.Manakala, menurut pendapat Furnivall, beliau mengatakan bahawa masyarakat majmuk muncul akibat daripada dasar-dasar penjajah yang menggalakkan penghijrahan penduduk mengikut keperluan ekonomi mereka yang telah mengakibatkan wujudnya kelompokkelompok yang pelbagai ragam dalam satu unit politik. Kelompok-kelompok ini bercampuran tetapi mereka tidak bergantung antara kaum lain dan amat berpegang kuat kepada agama, bahasa, budaya, idea-idea dan cara hidup yang tersendiri.Dalam memahami intipati masyarakat majmuk yang menumpukan semenanjung Malaysia sahaja, perkara yang akan diketengahkan pertamanya ialah sejarah yang mewujudkan masyarakat majmuk.
Kehadiran pelbagai kaum pada asasnya telah bermula semasa era kegemilangan Melaka lagi melalui proses perdagangan yang dijalankan. Walau bagaimanapun kehadiran mereka ini tidak dapat digerak menyusuri istilah masyarakat majmuk. Penggunaan istilah masyarakat majmuk itu sendiri hanya bermula pada penghujung abad ke-18 dengan adanya peranan pihak British.
Di sini akan dikupas dengan lebih lanjut kewujudan masyarakat majmuk di Tanah Melayu melalui penjajahan kuasa asing iaitu British.Penjajahan British di Tanah Melayu bertujuan memenuhi keperluan permintaan bahan mentah untuk industri barat, mencari pasaran baru bagi barangan siap dan mencari peluang baru untuk pelaburan di barat. Hasilnya Tanah Melayu membangun dengan pelbagai infrastruktur seperti jalan kereta api yang menghubungkan bandar dengan pelabuhan, perladangan dan pembangunan bandar-bandar kecil.Tanah Melayu yang pada ketika itu kekurangan pekerja di sektor perladangan dan perlombongan telah menyebabkan pihak British mulai membawa masuk beramai-ramai buruh dari China dan India untuk menampung kekurangan pekerja. Penambahan penduduk dan peningkatan kegiatan ekonomi telah menyebabkan pertumbuhan sektor bandar,jalan-jalan, rel-rel keretapi dan pembahagian kelompok kaum bandar dan luar bandar bertambah besar.Orang Cina memasuki Tanah Melayu melalui tiga cara.
Yang pertama, melalui sistem tiket kredit. Orang yang tidak mampu membayar tambang sendiri dibiayai secara hutang oleh seorang ejen. Mereka terikat dengan perjanjian untuk bekerja bagi suatu tempoh masa sehingga hutang mereka dijelaskan. Kumpulan imigran ini dikenali sebagai “singkheh” dan mereka menjadi bebas setelah habis mambayar hutang tambang perjalanan mereka.Yang kedua, melalui cara persendirian.Orang Cina datang ke Tanah Melayu melalui bantuan rakan atau ahli keluarganya ataupun dengan perbelanjaan sendiri. Ramai yang masuk melalui cara ini apabila Kerajaan China memansuhkan undang-undang menyekat penghijrahan penduduk pada tahun 1897. Yang ketiga, melalui Sistem Kangcu.
Sistem Kangcu diperkenalkan oleh Temenggung Ibrahim di Johor untuk menggalakkan orang Cina berpindah dan menetap kekal di Johor. Di bawah sistem Kangcu, orang Cina digalakkan masuk dan membuka ladang-ladang lada hitam, gambir, kopi, teh, sayur-sayuran dan bunga cengkih.Manakala kemasukan orang India pula melalui dua cara. Yang pertama, Sistem buruh kontrak. Sistem buruh kontrak telah diperkenalkan sejak tahun 1820 bagi mengambil buruh-buruh India untuk bekerja di ladang tebu dan kopi. Di bawah sistem ini, pemilik sesebuah ladang getah akan membuat pesanan bagi buruh-buruh melalui seorang ejen di India. Ejen ini akan pergi ke kampung-kampung dan mengumpulkan buruh-buruh India yang ingin datang ke Tanah Melayu.
Tambang pelayaran buruh-buruh itu akan dibiayai oleh majikan-majikan yang membuat pesanan tersebut. Setibanya di Tanah Melayu, buruh-buruh itu diserahkan kepada majikan. Mereka perlu menandatangani satu kontrak untuk bekerja dengan majikan itu selama 5 tahun dengan suatu gaji yang ditetapkan. Pekerja-pekerja ini biasanya dilayani dengan teruk. Mereka dipaksa bekerja selama 9-10 jam sehari dan 6 hari seminggu. Gaji mereka rendah dan jika pekerja jatuh sakit, dia tidak mendapat gaji.
Di samping itu, mereka juga terpaksa membayar sebahagian daripada gaji mereka untuk menjelaskan tambang perjalanan. Pada tahun 1910, sistem ini dihapuskan.Yang kedua pula adalah Sistem Kangani.Sistem ini diperkenalkan pada tahun 1898. Sistem ini, majikan yang ingin mendapat buruh dari India akan menghantar seorang Kangani atau mandur dari ladangnya ke India. Kangani ini akan balik ke kampung halamannya di India dan mengumpulkan saudara mara, sahabat ataupun penduduk sekampungnya yang ingin berhijrahke Tanah Melayu.
Kangani ini akan membayar tambang dan lain-lain perbelanjaan bagi buruh-buruh sehingga ketibaan mereka di ladang majikan. Di ladang, buruh-buruh bekerja di bawah jagaan Kangani yang mereka kenal dan dilayan dengan baik. Pada tahun 1907, Tabung Imigrasi diwujudkan oleh Negeri-negeri Melayu Bersekutu untuk membiayai kos pengambilan buruh India. Melalui tabung ini, majikan dikehendaki membayar kos pelayaran serta $5 setahun bagi setiap buruh India. Sistem Kangani juga mempunyai kelemahannya. Tiap-tiap kangani dibiayai mengikut bilangan pekerja yang diambil.
Oleh itu, sesetengah daripada mereka cuba memperoleh seberapa ramai pekerja yang boleh dari India. Lama-kelamaan, mereka juga menjadi ejen sistem kontrak. Pada tahun 1938, sistem ini diberhentikan akibat zaman kemelesetan ekonomi yang menyebabkan permintaan buruh dikurangkan.Dasar Pecah dan Perintah (Divide and Rule) melahirkan masyarakat majmuk yang mempunyai ciri-ciri tertentu. Dari sudut demografi, masyarakat Cina diberi peranan untuk mengusahakan lombong-lombong bijih manakala masyarakat India bekerja di ladang-ladang getah.Masyarakan Melayu pula ditempatkan di kawasan kampung dan bekerja sebagai petani. Penghijrahan orang Cina telah berlaku sebelum kedatangan British lagi, namun selepas kehadiran British, dasar penghijrahan adalah lebih liberal serta diwujudkan jaminan keselamatan undang-undang yang seterusnya keadaan ini menggalakkan lebih banyak migrasi masuk. Sementara kemasukan orang India pula berlaku dengan pesat di penghujung abad ke19 dimana berlakunya perkembangan perladangan seperti getah dan kopi.
Sebagaimana migrasi Cina, mereka juga dilindungi oleh British,mengikut ekonomi. Keadaan ini telah menyebabkan jurang perbezaan antara kaum semakin besar.Selepas Jepun berundur dari Tanah Melayu pada tahun 1945, British kembali memerintah. Kedatangan semula Inggeris membawa usaha-usaha perpaduan melalui pembentukan Jawatankuasa Perhubungan Kaum.Namun begitu sokongan rakyat terhadap mereka luput sama sekali kerana merasakan mereka lemah dan tidak mampu menentang Jepun selama 5 tahun penaklukan Jepun di Tanah Melayu.Activity: True or False?1)The British Constitution is not contained in a single legal document. 2)The supremacy of Parliament implies that there can be legal opposit-ionto it.3)One constitutional safeguard is the separation of powers.4)The Queen has lost the support of the entire British population.5)The title to the throne passes to the male line of the family in ordero-f descent.6)The Queen has an active role in the political debate.7)The Queen’s role as an element of the legislative authority isonly formal. 8)“Constituency” is the name given to each one of 650 electoral districts. 9)“MP” is the abbreviation for “Prime Minister”.10)A by-election is held when, for instance, an MP resigns.11)Leaders of the Government or of the Opposition sit on the backbenches.,12)Party members usually pass bills put before them by their party.
13)The Lord Chancellor presides over the House of Commons. 14)Citizen in Great Britain elect members to the House of Lords. 15)Members of the high clergy sit in the House of Lords.16)The House of Lords can delay a Bill from becoming law for 12 months.17)The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that obtains a majority of seats in a by-election. 18)When a Cabinet Minister disagrees with a Government decision, he/she must resign.19)The Shadow Cabinet is a group of relevant members of.Words: 270 - Pages: 2.British PetroleumWhat we know today as British Petroleum is the result of several companies being bought and sold over many years. One of the companies, Standard Oil Company was created in 1870 by John D. Rockefeller in Cleveland Ohio. By 1892, while still not selling gas products, Standard Oil companies was providing lubricating products to keeps parts on horse drawn wagons moving friction-free.One of the other companies, the Angelo-Persian Oil Company was formed in 1905.
By 1908 they were producing gas products and in 1912 they discovered a way to double the output of gasoline produced from a barrel of oil. At the same time they were able to find a way to increase the octane level of the gasoline produced.Industry AnalysisToday, British Petroleum is one of the largest energy companies in the world.
They provide their customers with fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light, retail services and petrochemical products for everyday household use. British Petroleum is involved in exploring for oil and other natural resources that can be converted into power. British Petroleum is committed to finding fuel sources that reduce green house gases and reduces the carbon footprint. They hope to accomplish as they research and refine alternative fuel sources such as fossil fuels, solar power, wind power, hydrogen, and natural gas.Competition in the oil and energy industry is furious. British Petroleum competes with companies like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron in three.Words: 1820 - Pages: 8.The British victories over the French in North America from 1758-1760 not only greatly impacted European history but American history as well.
The battle for North America was tied to the Seven Year's War (1756-1763). This was a European war between Britain and France and their allies (Austria for France and Prussia for Britain). A main source of contention between the two countries was being the dominant power in North America. Although France and Britain managed to remain at peace in Europe until 1756, they created a virtual state of war in North America.
The pivotal point of the war occurred in 1754 when George Washington clashed with French troops. In response, the British dispatched General Edward Braddock and a thousand regular troops to North America to seize Fort Duquesne in Ohio. Unfortunately General Braddock was defeated in 1755 when he was ambushed by French, Canadian, and Indian soldiers.
The British were also defeated by the French in 1756 and 1757 during minor battles. At this point, the French were slowly dominating central New York and Western New England. Back in Europe, British were also losing the Seven Year war.Two developments turned the tide for the British. The Iroquois and most Ohio Indiana abandoned their support of the French.
This allowed the British to capture French forts in Ohio. The second decisive development occurred hen William Pitt took control of military affairs in the British cabinet. Pitt was able to mobilize.Words: 375 - Pages: 2.Hello,everybodyNow, I talk about symbols of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.The United Kingdom a lot of symbols such as symbols of the England,Scotland, Northern Ireland and wales.However, I only talk about main symbols of the United Kingdom.There are fours symbols of the UK:first, national personificationsecond, national animalthird, coat of armsfinally, motto of the UKThe first, national personification is Britannia.
Britannia is a old name of British and this is a name of the young woman. She wear a classical dress,she put on a helmet, and she is holding a trident and shield with the union flag. Britannia became a popular figure in 1707 when Scotland, Wales and England were united to from Great Britain. She is used as a symbols of power and unity British.The second, national animal is a lion.Lion is a symbol of England and also a main symbols of the United Kingdom.