Malaysia, 1969

1. It is my privilege to be here

for the first time and to come to this rostrum with the

signal honour of offering my felicitations to you, Madam,

on your election as President of this august Assembly. Your

election to that high office is a tribute to a lady who is a

diplomat and who has made lasting and outstanding

contributions to the work of the United Nations.

2. Before proceeding further I should like to join with

others in expressing my condolences and sympathies to the

delegation of Guatemala on the sudden demise of that

State’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Arenales, who had served this

Organization and its specialized agencies devotedly in many

capacities, finally crowning them all as President of the

twenty-third session of the General Assembly, to which

office he brought added lustre.

3. I should also like to take this opportunity of paying the

highest tribute to the Secretary-General, U Thant, who has

brought to his high office and difficult tasks a rare skill and

great courage and foresight which are a source of comfort

and encouragement to so many of us amidst the trials and

tribulations of the present-day world.

4. I have come here almost directly from the historic

Islamic Summit Conference held at Rabat from 22 to 25

September 1969 and I should like to outline to the

Assembly the significance and the outcome of that gathering.

The Conference was the first of its kind where Heads of

States and Governments and other representatives from

Moslem countries gathered together to discuss matters of

common concern. The subjects of common concern were

the invasion of Palestine by Israel, thereby compromising

the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, subsequently,

while under Israeli control, the sacrilege committed to the

Al Aqsa Mosque, which caused anger and humiliation to all Moslems.

5. The holding of that Conference, to which Moslem

leaders came from great distances at quite short notice, was

an indication of the grave concern of the entire Moslem

world regarding the situation in West Asia. It can be said

therefore that the status and the future of the Holy City of

Jerusalem is no longer a matter between Israel and Jordan

only, or even between Israel and the Arab States; it is a

matter of deep and mutual concern to all Moslems

throughout the world. It was that widespread emotion and

pressure of Moslem public opinion which brought the

various Heads of States and Governments and other

representatives to Rabat. What has happened in West Asia is

a matter for the serious attention of world Powers for,

sooner or later, unless some solution is found, it must draw

all Moslem nations into the conflict because Moslems regard

the occupation of Jerusalem by force as a humiliation and

an insult to their religion.

6. Moslems everywhere therefore felt a great sense of

shame and tragedy at what had occurred. That loss was

made all the more bitter by the sacrilegious act of

vandalism against the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque, for which the

Moslems hold Israel responsible. Although a foreigner has

been charged with the crime, it must be appreciated that

the Al Aqsa Mosque is the third most holy mosque of all

Moslems and the place to which the Holy Prophet and his

followers turned as the first Kiblat. Who, then, among the

Moslems can help but look to it with feelings of the most

profound reverence? It is understandable, therefore, that

Moslems everywhere should be profoundly affected by the

events in West Asia. Hence, unless the United Nations takes

firm action to enforce its decisions, the pressure of public

opinion in the Moslem world will certainly explode and

force the leaders to take some drastic action which would

have very serious consequences on world peace. Israel

would then have to reckon not only with the Arab people

but with all Moslems.

7. The resolutions adopted at the Rabat Conference were

indeed restrained and statesmanlike. But that restraint

should not lead others to underestimate the intensity of

feeling and emotion around the Conference table. In this

connexion, I should like here to express my disappointment

that there has been so little publicity in the Western press

with regard to the Conference itself and what happened at,

or what came out of that Conference. In fact, one cannot

help feeling that there was an attempt to belittle the

Conference through suppression of the news. The Heads of

State or Government, representatives from 25 countries

representing some 600 million people, had come together

to discuss a subject of vital importance to them all, which

must, on that score alone, hold world interest and

attention. It is very important that the public in Western

countries should be made aware of, and should understand,

the deep feelings and anxiety of Moslem peoples. In short,

the subject of discussions involved the question of either

peace or war; on one side the Israelis, and on the other the

Arabs, now backed by the Moslems of the rest of the world.

8. The restrained resolutions adopted at the Rabat Conference

were arrived at after a most careful study by all

participating nations. Such an attitude was due mainly to

the presence and counsel of the non-Arab Moslems, and I

cannot accept any characterization of the Conference such

as that made by the Israeli representative, in respect of the

membership of the Security Council, who said that “one

third of the Security Council’s members are States whose

diplomatic relations and sentimental predilections are

exclusively confined to one side of the Middle East dispute...”

[1757th meeting, para. 160].

9. On principle, however, the resolutions taken there leave

no room for any compromise. I refer in particular to the

appeal of the Conference to Members of the international

community, “to intensify their collective and individual

efforts to secure the speedy withdrawal of Israeli military

forces from all the territories occupied as a result of the war

of June 1967, in accordance with the established principle

of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by military

conquest”.

10. In other words, Moslems would not tolerate the

acquisition of Jerusalem by the Israelis through conquest,

and are determined to dislodge them by any means

possible. The four major Powers — Britain, France, the

Soviet Union and the United States — are urged, in the words

of the Rabat Declaration, “to take into account the deep

attachment of the followers of Islam to Jerusalem and the

solemn resolve of their Governments to strive for its

liberation”. The major Powers should heed the depth of

conviction and feeling of Moslems throughout the world on

this question, which shows that if no progress is made to

restore Jerusalem to its rightful owners, then sooner or later

a crusade to recover it will start in earnest. How then can

we prevent the sporadic fighting from escalating into 2 holy

war with dangerous consequences to world peace?

11. We must, therefore, explore all possible avenues

towards alleviating the present situation and bringing us

nearer a peaceful solution. The Rabat Conference has

declared unacceptable any solution of the problem of

Palestine that would deny Jerusalem the status it had

before June 1967. This brings us back to Security Council

resolutions 252 (1968), 267 (1969) and 271 (1969), which

clearly stated that the legislative and administrative actions

taken by Israel, which tend to change the legal status of

Jerusalem, are invalid and have no valid effect on that

status. If those resolutions could be enforced, the net result

would be to restore that part of Jerusalem to its rightful

owners. It is imperative for the United Nations to give

effect to its resolutions and decisions, as otherwise the

decisions taken will become valueless.

12. According to the Israel representative who spoke in

this Assembly, Israel is ever ready to discuss peace with the

Arab States and to negotiate terms for a settlement of the

present dispute or trouble. He said: “...I come back to

repeat with increased conviction what I said to the Arab

Governments at this rostrum in June 1967: ‘You have

chosen repeatedly to meet us in the arena of battle. You

cannot refuse to meet us at the negotiating table.’” [Ibid.,

para. 176.]

13. That was well said but the question is whether the

words carry the meaning or intention on the part of Israel

to make peace with honour and justice. If the intention is

there, then what is the objection to the Israelis’ withdrawing

their military forces from all the territories occupied as

a result of the war of June 1967, in accordance with the

established principles of the United Nations, as a prelude to

the talks? If Israel agreed to accept Security Council

resolutions 242 (1967) and 252 (1968), and the resolutions

which followed pertaining to Jerusalem, I am certain that

the Arab States would agree to a dialogue that might lead to peace.

14. Malaysia is one of the countries which attended the

Rabat Conference and recognized the United Nations

decision to create Israel, and it is willing to use its best

endeavours towards a settlement of the dispute. But

Malaysia is not prepared to offer its services when it is

obvious to it that Israel, in offering to hold a dialogue, is in

fact talking from a position of strength, with one hand

holding a gun and the other a pen offering, so they say, to

sign the treaty of peace. No self-respecting people with any

pride left would accept these terms. The only answer to

such an Israeli offer to discuss peace will be for the Arab

nations to prepare for war.

15. It is obvious that Israel, elated with its successes, will

not willingly return the occupied territories. But can it hold

them for all time — 2 million people against 100 million

Arabs, and now the whole of the Moslem people, who are

united in their determination to back the Arabs? They may

hold it for a time but it will not be for all time, and even

that would be at a great sacrifice to themselves of lives and

money. That is clear. The time will come when they will

have to give up this territory, and even more.

16. The United Nations must take a firm stand now and

bring pressure upon Israel to accept the decisions reached,

both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council,

and the big Powers must make it their duty to see that they

are carried out. Lasting peace cannot be built on war

machines but only on mutual respect, understanding and

co-operation between the peoples of that region of Asia

who are now locked together in deadly conflict. Are the

Israelis prepared to accept the animosity of the other Asian

Moslem nations which are now finding the Israeli attitude

repugnant, hostile and arrogant?

17. Within the framework of what I have said and bearing

in mind the urgent necessity of some positive action to

break out of the present impasse, there might be consideration

of the idea that, as a temporary expedient and pending

a final settlement, the United Nations itself should assume

authority and jurisdiction over Jerusalem. According to the

Israeli representative:

“Israel does not claim exclusive or unilateral jurisdiction

in the Holy Places of Christianity and Islam in

Jerusalem and is willing to discuss this principle with

those traditionally concerned. There is a versatile range of

possibilities for working out a status for the Holy Places

in such a manner as to promote Middle Eastern peace and

ecumenical harmony.” [Ibid., para. 149.]

18. If that is so, there is no reason why Israel cannot

accept this proposal, which has as its main objective the

protection of the sacred places in Jerusalem, and to ensure

that an occurrence such as the case of the Al Aqsa Mosque

should not incite intense emotion, animosity and hatred

towards any one particular race of people. I repeat that this

will not be made at the sacrifice of the principle I

enunciated earlier, namely, the evacuation by Israel of the

territories acquired by aggression.

19. I hope that this idea which I have put forward in all

sincerity and humility will carry enough weight to influence

the United Nations in order to gain wider support for the

resolutions it has already adopted.

20. I should like to turn next to an area much closer home

to Malaysia, that is, to the region of South-East Asia which

is going through a period of much change and uncertainty.

It has long been my view that the countries of South-East

Asia must get together and work together to ensure their

security, stability and prosperity. Indeed as long ago as

4 February 1958, only six months after our own independence,

during an official visit to Ceylon, I urged publicly

that a meeting of South-East Asian leaders should be held

to forge unity in the region. That was, if I may say So, at a

time more than 10 years ago when the concept of regional

co-operation was perhaps less fashionable than it is today. I

said then, that we in South-East Asia were rich in natural

resources and that we were also rich in high ideals of

justice, human rights, liberty and freedom. But we also had

many problems in common and I expressed my belief that

the only way we could tackle our problems was by getting

together, working together and planning together even

more closely. In that same speech I warned that if the

countries in South-East Asia continued to drift apart, then

the danger would be that we might have to lean for support

on big nations with the result that independence, on which

we place so much value, would come to have very much less

meaning. I believe that the sentiments I expressed then still

retain their validity — indeed, they have equal, if not greater,

force today.

21. Following upon that statement, my Government took

the initiative in engaging in consultations with our neighbours,

and this led to the formation of the Association of

South-East Asia in 1961 with three member States. The

limited membership and the long interval that passed before

its formation were indicative of the difficulties and obstacles

which stood in the way of regional co-operation.

Since then we have made greater progress. In 1967 the

Association of South-East Asia enlarged its scope and

increased its membership and now goes by the name of

ASEAN, or the Association of South-East Asian Nations,

with Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and

Malaysia as members. I am happy to report that after a

brief lull in its activities — for reasons that I need not go into

now — the work of ASEAN is now proceeding apace.

22. All the practical programmes so far discussed or

undertaken at different levels in ASEAN have been

conscientiously bent to economic, social and cultural co-operation.

At the same time, Malaysia is already co-operating

with some of its neighbours in other fields of activity.

23. However, while our attention and efforts are being

directed towards peaceful development with our neighbours,

we are at the same time faced with acts of terrorism

and subversion by enemies who are out to wreck our efforts

in that region of Asia, and who are constantly trying to

undo our good work in order to create disorder and

disturbance. These enemies find ready support from followers

within our territories whose loyalty to their country

of origin makes them into tools, ever ready to carry out the

orders emanating from that source. How to deal with them

is a matter of great concern to us. They are subjects of our

country by virtue of the law, but their hearts and minds are

subject to outside power, a new type of imperialism that

tries to gain control of South-East Asian countries by the

exercise of influence over these traitors. Many of the

countries in South-East Asia have suffered, in one form or

another, from subversion and other acts of violence from

these enemies. Above all, apart from the troubles that they

cause us, their activities involve us in much expenditure,

time and planning which should be directed towards

peaceful purposes for the betterment of men.

24. There is the conflict in Viet-Nam. A dangerous

situation is developing in Laos and on the northern Thai

border. Recently, in my own capital city there were the

regrettable eruptions of 13 May caused by these same

enemies, and what is worse, the foreign press — particularly

the press of the Commonwealth countries — in reporting the

incidents purposely played them up to the advantage of the

enemy. This irresponsible reporting calls for censure and, in

my opinion, no place is more suitable than this rostrum for

me to apply it.

25. On 13 May, an event which shocked our nation and

shook it to the core took place; it was known as the “riot

of 13 May”, which caused loss of life and damage to

property, unprecedented in the history of our young

nation. Such an unleashing of violence had never happened

before in that happy country where people of different

races lived together in tranquillity and peace.

26. As a result of the outbreak of the violence, foreign

correspondents converged on the capital as if drawn by a

magnet. They turned out in droves in the troubled areas.

They were there to collect news and to transmit it to the

readers in their countries. It was expected, therefore, that

they would give a correct account of what was happening in

that unhappy city, but instead, most of them turned up in

order to create a sensation abroad, adopting the attitude

that no news is good news unless it is accompanied by

stories of horror, terror or acts of atrocity. They made the

most of it, seeming to gloat over our misfortunes. Seldom

has any country had to put up with such misrepresentation,

distortion of facts and corruption of truth as was suffered

by us. Any gossip or any rumour which they picked up

from street corners, from hooligans and, above all, from our

enemies, was news for them and for the readers in their

own countries. In fact, the general run of coverage by many

foreign correspondents was so exaggerated as to be out of

proportion to what happened. Their head offices abroad

showed an equal lack of balance in publishing the news, and

some even suggested that Malaysia should be expelled from

the Commonwealth. In all honesty, can such reporting be

considered fair? If the riots had continued for some weeks

instead of for five days and had got out of control, if the

Government had proved incompetent and unable to deal

with the situation, then such headlines as were flashed in

these papers might have been justified. In fact, the

Government was in control and within three days of the

outbreak of violence the worst part of the trouble was over.

27. In these days some newspapers are blatantly and

outrageously irresponsible. They care not a jot for the truth

of the subject-matter they publish; all they seek is headline

news, and the more sensational the better. It was a

heartbreaking experience for me to read extracts from the

reports appearing in the newspapers and journals abroad,

for they did a lot of harm to the image of my country and

to the good name of the leaders entrusted with its care and

administration. The goodwill and friendship - which Malaysia

had gained in the short years of its independence received a

setback from the scandalous strokes of their pens. The

damage they did to my country by wildly exaggerated

reports, misrepresentation of facts and editorial comments

of armchair critics writing thousands of miles away was

mischievous, unjustified and uncalled for. it was irresponsible,

careless journalism of the worst kind.

28. When I consider this lamentable chapter in journalism

today which published the incredible stories that we have

had to read in respect of current events, world and

domestic affairs, I feel that many Asian and African leaders

have been justified in barring some journalists from their

countries. The way the image of their countries has

suffered, or they themselves have suffered as a result of this

type of journalism, is sufficient reason for their action.

What happened in my country is a clear instance of this. We

have had to face internal threats, which I have spoken

about, instigated from outside, and the part played by the

foreign press during that troubled period meant support to

the enemies and did further harm to our cause.

29. What is worse is that most of those correspondents

and journalists came from countries of the Commonwealth,

of which we are a member. What irony this is when a nation

like ours, confronted with a situation instigated by our

enemies, finds our friends ranged alongside them. That was

the situation we faced. May this never happen again. I

venture to think this is by no means an inappropriate forum

from which one is entitled to express one’s concern, if not

censure, when these responsibilities are ignored. This, I

regret to say, was sadly lacking in the reporting of the 13

May incident. Therefore, we seek the co-operation of the

members of the press from friendly countries to help us

through the exercise of care and balanced judgement in

their reporting of events.

30. With your leave, I might now make a brief reference to

the matter of the Philippine claim to Sabah, which, I may

say, was to a large measure the outcome of irresponsible

journalism in Manila. It is a subject with which the

Assembly is quite familiar, and Malaysian representatives

here have, more than once over the last six years, stated our

position in full. All I want to say here is this: after all the

technicalities, the debates and the dust have been cleared

away, it is an incontrovertible fact that the people of Sabah

have, by democratic processes, decided and reaffirmed their

decision to be part of Malaysia. That fact was confirmed by

no less an authority than the Secretary-General himself, in

response, moreover, to a request made by inter alia the

Philippines itself. Therefore, howsoever or in whatever

forum the Philippines now wishes to pursue its claim, unless

it can explain how it can expect us to ignore the simple but

fundamental fact that the people of Sabah have exercised

their right of self-determination, then there is nothing more

to be said on this matter. What is disturbing to us is that, by

playing up the matter of this claim, our neighbour is

playing into the enemy’s hands and thereby causing some

setbacks in our efforts in the various fields of regional

co-operation.

31. The situation in that part of the world demands that

each and every country of South-East Asia see how best we

can face our common dangers. Of course, I do not mean by

this that there should necessarily be a multilateral defence

pact among the South-East Asian countries. I know that

this is in many ways impracticable and even, in the view of

some, undesirable. However, the countries of South-East

Asia should keep in close touch and in consultation with

one another in the interest of our very survival and see what

sort of understanding we can work out regarding the

defence of the region in the 1970s. There are many ways

we can co-operate. Malaysia is co-operating with our

neighbour in the north, Thailand, in joint border operations,

and we are similarly co-operating with Indonesia in

East Malaysia along the border in Sarawak, and with

Singapore on defence within the framework of the Five

Powers Defence arrangements. These are examples of the

ways open to us to co-operate in our mutual interests. I

repeat that there should be no hard and fast plan and no

rigid framework for such co-operation. What is important is

that every country in South-East Asia should do its utmost

to co-operate in every possible way with its neighbours, and

in this way a web of interlocking arrangements would be

established in the region which would further strengthen

regional co-operation.

32. Finally, I should like to turn to some of the

outstanding issues facing this twenty-fourth session of the

General Assembly. My delegation will speak at greater

length in the subsequent discussions on these particular

items, but because of their importance or interest I would

crave your indulgence to refer briefly to them now.

33. The death of Cape Town’s best-known Moslem leader,

Imam Abdullah Harun, who died in prison on Saturday, 27

September, after being held for more than four months

under the South African 180-day detention law, reminds us

again of man’s inhumanity to man as a result of the policy

of apartheid. I have long felt strongly about this disgraceful

and despicable policy ruthlessly pursued by the Government

of South Africa and took the initiative, as long ago as 1960,

to have it expelled from the Commonwealth and to boycott

all trade with it. South Africa must also be held accountable

for its defiance of the United Nations over Namibia.

Then there is also the situation in Rhodesia, which has

turned away from any liberalization of its régime and has

sought to imitate the inhuman and racist policies of its

southern neighbour. I wish, for example, to draw the

attention of the Assembly to the fact that the Government

of Rhodesia has, by act of proclamation, ordered Chief

Rekayi and the tribe of Tangwena to leave their traditional

home as the Government has claimed their land for white

settlers. Such acts of injustice will continue unabated unless

effective sanctions are taken to put a stop to them. I wish

to point out now that, like the situation in West Asia, the

entire situation in southern Africa, with all its ramifications,

is of concern to more than just the immediate

neighbours or even to the countries of the African

continent. I appeal, therefore, in particular to the major

Powers to do their utmost to defuse the time-bomb which

is ticking inexorably before it explodes with incalculable

consequences to us all.

34. I should like, finally, to refer to the imaginative

proposal for an international university contained in the

Secretary-General’s introduction to his annual report

[A/7601/Add.1, paras. 196 and 197]. I hope that this idea

will be explored at greater length, because I believe that it is

essential to channel the energies, the ideas and the

enthusiasm of youth along constructive lines. The restlessness

of youth today is a world-wide and disturbing

phenomenon. It must be provided with a challenge such as

the challenge of international service or international

economic development. I welcome the suggestion that the

primary objective of the university would be to promote

international understanding, at both the political and the

cultural level. Of course, the establishment of an international

university would not itself lead to the achievement of

that objective. The university would need to evolve specific

and positive programmes for promoting international

understanding and for spreading its methods and influence

to the various institutions of learning at all levels throughout

the world.

35. As we stand today on the threshold. of the twenty-fifth

anniversary of the United Nations, Madam President,

let me express the hope that this twenty-fourth session of

the General Assembly, under your able guidance, will make

progress along the road to international peace, economic

development and social betterment, for which all mankind

has yearned since time immemorial. I pledge the full

support and co-operation of my Government in that task.