CO885-(11-12) — Page 598

518

PCCORD

། ། ། ། །

OFFICE

Reference -

C.O.882/12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BF REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

116

At a

the two letters were seen and approved by the three European Unofficial Members and one of the Chinese Unofficial Members of the Johore Councils, all of whom are reported to me by Dr. Winstedt to be to-day more intractable even than the Sultan. meeting of the Johore Executive Council on 5th November, two Unofficial Members, Sir David Galloway and Mr. S. Q. Wong, even opposed the usual Johore contribution to the Singapore office of the Secretary to the High Commissioner on the ground that Johore had no relations with the High Commissioner but only with the Governor of the Straits Settlements.

6. The two points at issue are:-

(a) whether or not the relation of Johore to Great Britain differs in any respect

from that of the other Malay States; and

(b) whether or not the Governor of the Straits Settlements is High Commis-

sioner for the State of Johore.

7. At law there may be a difference between the written internal constitution of Johore (which inter alia allows the Sultan to act in opposition to his Executive Council and provides that any measure passed by the State Council four times must be approved by the Sultan) and the internal constitution of a Federated Malay State, like Pahang as defined in Privy Council Appeal No. 27 of 1932- The Sultan of Pahang is an absolute ruler in whom resides all legislative and executive power, subject only to the limitations which he has from time to time imposed upon himself. In 1889 he appointed and there has since existed a State Council, but this is only an advisory body; and, though since 1889 laws for the State have been enacted by the Sultan in Council, the legislative power has remained in the Sultan acting with the advice of the British Resident.' Actually, however, as pointed out on pages 3-4 of the enclosure to my Unfederated Malay States (Johore) Confidential despatch dated 9th October, 1931, Rulers of the Federated Malay States have always taken part as ordinary voters in their Councils and decisions have been by a majority of votes and not by assent of the Ruler. The fact that in practice, if not de jure, all the Sultans are constitutional rulers is relevant to the objection raised by the Sultan of Johore that a constitutional ruler should not attend a Durbar. Not one of the Malay Sultans would pass a law (even if his Resident approved) without the advice of his State Council. In fact, therefore, all the Malay Sultans, including Johore, and the Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements are on the same footing at a Durbar; not one of them can bind his own administration by any decision; the only decisions taken can be that such and such a measure or policy shall be brought forward by individual members of the Durbar for the consideration of the administration which each informally represents. Apart from this point, though the Johore "Magna Charta, accepted by us, is often difficult to reconcile with the 1914 Agreement, the internal constitution of the State is not relevant to the point now under consideration, for the Sultan bases his claim to different status on his treaty relations with Great Britain.

1

8. The Johore Agreement of 1885 (vide "Treaties and Engagements affecting the Malay States and Borneo," edited by Maxwell and Gibson, page 134) is identical in wording with the Pahang Agreement of 1887 (ib., p. 66), and in substance, though not always in wording, with the Trengganu Agreement of 1910 (ib., p. 112). In all three, protection was definitely extended to the Malay State and power to appoint an officer "having functions similar to those of a consular officer was reserved to the protecting Power. Such officers were appointed in Pahang and Trengganu, but not in Johore. The further step of appointing a British officer to give authoritative advice followed almost at once in Pahang and was taken without any formal agree- ment, an exchange of letters being considered sufficient. In the other two cases the interval was longer and the original Agreement was amended, the substituted article being in practically identical words and being evidently based on Articles VI, VIII, and X of the Treaty of Pangkor, 1874 (ib., p. 28). In Trengganu there is in existence a written constitution, based on the Johore Constitution. The only difference in the relationship to Great Britain of these two States, if there is any, is to be found in the subsidiary stipulations in the correspondence prior to the Johore 1914 Agreement (ib., p. 134), which might at first sight appear to vary that Agreement to some extent. Paragraph 2 of the Sultan's letter dated 11th May, 1914, stipulates as follows:-

"As it is possible that there may be occasional differences of opinion between myself and the General Adviser, I would suggest that the opinion of the State Council should be taken whenever such divergences arise, and should be communicated to Your Excellency along with the views of the General Adviser.' If this correspondence really amplifies the final Agreement, the acceptance of this

117

stipulation by Sir Arthur Young (ib., page 135) would appear at the most to introduce a third party with a right to an expression of opinion. It cannot alter the obligation of the Sultan to ask and act upon the advice of the General Adviser. In spite of this clear obligation, however, the present Sultan will not admit political dependence and, if he is informed of its existence, I am certain that he will arrange to have the matter raised in Parliament.

9. Finally, I come to the Sultan's claim that he is authorised to address me as Governor, and not as High Commissioner, and that this differentiates him from other Rulers. Here it will be convenient to quote from paragraph 8 (a) of my Unfederated Malay States Confidential despatch dated 9th October, 1931-

"As early as 1911 the Sultan of Johore protested that the practice of using only the style Governor' in addressing His Majesty's representative had been followed in his father's time and had obtained before the post of High Com- missioner was created. In reply to despatch Malay States No. 512 of 28th November, 1911, the then Secretary of State agreed that the Sultan should for the present address His Majesty's representative as Governor and not as High Commissioner, adding that the latter style had been proposed, not in order to affect the status of Johore, but for the convenience of official correspondence (Secretary of State's despatch Malay States No. 5 of 5th January, 1912†). In Malay States despatch No. 43 of 30th January, 1912,‡ Sir Arthur Young reported to the Secretary of State that he had informed His Highness that the proposal to use the style High Commissioner had been for the convenience of official correspondence, and that the Sultan had been warned the subject would be brought up again, if the inconvenience increased. But even in the 1914 Treaty with Johore Sir Arthur Young signed as Governor.' There is no doubt that- the Sultan and all the Johore Chiefs look upon this usage as a symbol of indepen- dence, and it is one of the small things to which they attach the utmost political importance. The Sultan feels that he is an independent ruler addressing another independent ruler."

As late as the 5th of November, 1914, Sir Arthur Young wrote to the Sultan regretting that the term " High Commissioner " had appeared in a Johore Circular instead of the term "Governor "and adding that his Secretary was not aware that, when writing to Johore,, he should state he is directed by the Governor and not by the High Com- missioner. But this seems to be no more than an expression of regret for the in- advertent use of the term at a time when there was no intention of reopening the question and abandoning the then existing practice.

10. Your Federated Malay States despatch No. 178 of 18th May, 1931,§ for- warded a Commission passed under the Royal Sign Manual and Signet on the 16th March, 1931, appointing the officer for the time being administering the Government of the Straits Settlements to be High Commissioner for all the Malay States including Johore. When, however, in Federated Malay States despatch No. 473 of 6th July, 1930, I asked Lord Passfield to issue this new Commission appointing the Governor to be ez officio High Commissioner for the Unfederated Malay States, my attention had not been drawn to the special claims made by the Sultan of Johore and to the wording of the second clause of the 1897 Commission-" High Commissioner for the Federated States in the Malay Peninsula of Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, and Pahang, which were then and are now under our Protection and for any other Territories within the said Peninsula which might at any time thereafter be under our Protection." This 1897 Commission, therefore, expressly even if perhaps accidentally excludes the Protected State of Johore in spite of the 1885 Treaty with Johore; and the 1914 Agreement merely substitutes a new Article for an old in the 1885 Treaty. The question, therefore, arises whether in the face of the objections raised by the Sultan and the Unofficial Members of his Council it is expedient for the Protecting Power to insist on the change, although as early as 1911 one Secretary of State had considered it convenient.

11. The new 1931 Commission was printed in the "Johore Gazette " at a time when the Sultan was in Europe. When on his return he challenged it, the General Adviser informed His Highness that I was of opinion that the term Governor must give the outside world the idea that Johore was part of the Colony and temporarily the Sultan kept silent. Actually the term High Commissioner is used in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, page 25, of Mr. Braddell's pamphlet, when he is writing of Johore, though

*H.C. 41037/1911: not printed. H.C. 5815/1912: not printed.

† H.C. 41037/1911: not printed.

§ C. 72441/30 [No. 7]: not printed.

|| C. 72441/30 [No. 1]: not printed.