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.