KUALA LUMPUR: History textbooks continue to contain erroneous facts, despite numerous studies refuting inaccuracies.
Taking the Pangkor Treaty of 1874 as an example, history textbooks maintained that it is a result of a disagreement between Sultan Abdullah and Sultan Ismail, as well as due to conflicts among secret societies leading to the Larut War in Perak.
Senior Lecturer of History at Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Dr Azmi Ariffin, said since the 1970s, these facts have been questioned, including by Western scholars.
However, the historical accounts of the Pangkor Treaty remain uncorrected in textbooks.
"The Pangkor Treaty of 1874 served as a gateway for British intervention in the Malay states. The prevailing understanding of the treaty is now a severe historical misconception and deception," he said in a series titled 'Apa khabar Dr Azmi Ariffin?', broadcasted on Studio Buku TikTok account.
In his shared insights, also posted on Penerbit USM Facebook page, Azmi explained that based on his research, after the demise of Sultan Ali (father of Raja Abdullah), Raja Abdullah was supposed to succeed his father as the Sultan, but he refused.
"Due to Raja Abdullah's refusal, the nobles of Perak collectively appointed Raja Osman, also the son of Sultan Ali, to be the new sultan of Perak. However, Raja Osman declined and proposed Raja Ismail to be appointed instead. After coercion, Raja Ismail agreed.
"During that time, if a new Sultan was not appointed, the body of Sultan Ali would remain unburied," he said. Azmi said according to Perak's customs, the burial of a deceased Sultan would only occur after the installation of a new ruler.
However, he pointed out that school history textbooks portray Raja Ismail as seizing the rights and position of Raja Abdullah, depicting the power struggle as occurring within a day of Raja Ismail's installation, whereas it actually took place a year later.
Azmi stressed that people should understand clearly that the Pangkor Treaty facilitated colonial imperialism in the context of British-made history.
He highlighted that every colonial-era treaty was an expression of colonialism itself, not a normal treaty whis is balanced but fraught with coercion, threats, force, and deceit.
Azmi asserted that the Pangkor Treaty was initiated through coercion and military threats.
"When the British failed to install Raja Abdullah as Sultan, they planned to appoint someone else to oust Raja Ismail through a forced letter. "Through this letter, Raja Abdullah had to assert his position as the Sultan against Raja Ismail.
"Furthermore, if Raja Abdullah failed to strengthen his position as the Sultan, the British would send another letter appointing Raja Yusuf as the new Sultan," he said.
Azmi made it clear that the British desired a compliant Sultan to meet their requirements.
"Another aspect possibly omitted from our textbooks is the final stages of British dominance in Perak.
"They resorted to violence, initiating warfare," he said.
He explained that the assassination of JWW Birch in 1875 was seen as a 'gift from god' and the British used this as a pretext, alleging that Malays have declared war against them.
As a result, Azmi stated, the British began importing soldiers and employing new weapons, resorting to indiscriminate violence, including rocket launches, village burnings, and executions.
He lamented that despite the aim of history education to instil patriotic awareness, British atrocities are not honestly depicted.
Instead, local governments are portrayed negatively as dominated by oppressive systems and indigenous customs.
"Everything is negative. The history presented is about slavery, oppressive systems, debt bondage, and so on, which can all be questioned," he said.
Azmi explained that many other events in Perak are not properly explained or communicated to the public, and the Pangkor Treaty as described in history textbooks is from a British perspective.
He said that local people in the history books are depicted negatively, including leaders, administrative systems, and society, all while portraying British colonialism as modernising and advancing Perak.
Thus, he concluded, with such narratives, the younger generation will inevitably question whether they were truly colonised, given the favourable portrayal of the British.