MY speech during the PN-BN Perdana Ceramah in Jempol, Negeri Sembilan on July 23 unexpectedly sparked controversy after I was accused of stating that Malays only have Tanah Melayu, while other races have countries historically associated with their respective origins.
What I said was:
“Melayu tadak dah tanah, Melayu ada Tanah Melayu ni saja. Orang India ada India. Orang Cina ada Cina... Melayu di mana? Melayu di sini saja.” ("The Malays have no land, Malays only have this Tanah Melayu. Indians have India. Chinese have China... Where are the Malays? Malays are only here.")
I later reiterated the idea by referring to the history of nation-building:
“Allah buat bangsa ini ada tanah, kaum dia ada tanah dia. Siam duduk di Thailand, Vietnam di Vietnam, Kampuchea di Kemboja, Cina di China, India di India... Dulu nama tanah ni Tanah Melayu. Ditubuhkan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.” (Allah made it so this race has land, each people has their own land. The Siamese live in Thailand, the Vietnamese in Vietnam, the Khmer in Cambodia, the Chinese in China, the Indians in India... This land used to be called Tanah Melayu. The Federation of Malaya was established.")
The speech was delivered in the context of the Negeri Sembilan State Election (PRN) campaign. I linked the historical identity of Tanah Melayu with the political and economic position of Malays, the formation of the Federation of Malaya and the need for the Malay community to pay attention to current political developments.
However, from an academic perspective, the expression that Tanah Melayu is the historical homeland and the only homeland of the Malays is not an idea I created in 2026.
The same essence had previously been expressed officially by at least three British figures during debates in the United Kingdom Parliament, namely Oliver Stanley in 1946, Lord Killearn in 1949 and Lord Ogmore in 1957.
Therefore, my speech should not be portrayed as though I introduced a new racist doctrine or denied the citizenship rights of non-Malay Malaysians. What I stated has historical roots in official British records concerning Tanah Melayu.
Oliver Stanley: Tanah Melayu as the traditional homeland of Malays
On March 8, 1946, during a House of Commons debate on the Malayan Union proposal, Oliver Stanley, Member of Parliament for Bristol West, stated:
“It is quite true, as has been pointed out by so many hon. Members, that Malaya was originally a Malayan country, that it is the traditional home of the Malays, and that the Chinese and Indians who have come there have come there in larger numbers, at any rate, in recent years and largely at our invitation.”
The statement contained two important historical acknowledgements.
Firstly, Tanah Melayu was recognised as a territory with a historical connection to the Malays. Secondly, the growth of Chinese and Indian communities during the colonial period was linked to British policies that encouraged migration and labour movement.
However, Oliver Stanley did not use that historical recognition to deny the future of non-Malay communities who had permanently settled in the country.
In the same speech, he stated:
“Whatever the history is, the fact remains that we cannot possibly expect large numbers of Chinese and Indians to live for ever as Stateless visitors in the country in which they may have chosen, at our invitation, to make their homes and the homes of their children.”
This reflected the view that two realities could exist together - recognition of the historical relationship between Tanah Melayu and Malays, while also recognising the rights of communities who had made the country their permanent home.
Lord Killearn: The name ‘Malaya’ reflects its connection to the Malays
On April 13, 1949, Lord Killearn, or Miles Wedderburn Lampson, delivered a speech during the Colonial Policy and Administration debate in the House of Lords.
While discussing the future of self-government in Malaya, he said:
“As the name implies, it is the land of the Malays - a grand people. But there are other racial factors which have to be considered in dealing with this extremely delicate question.”
Lord Killearn linked the name “Malaya” with the Malays while acknowledging that other communities also formed part of the political reality that had to be considered.
The statement showed that recognition of Malay historical identity did not necessarily mean rejecting the existence or interests of other communities.
Both elements, Malay historical identity and a multicultural society, could be acknowledged at the same time.
Lord Ogmore: Tanah Melayu as the only homeland of Malays
On July 29, 1957, shortly before the independence of the Federation of Malaya, Lord Ogmore delivered a speech during the House of Lords debate on the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill.
He stated:
“One has to remember that Malaya is the Malays’ only home, and that that does not necessarily apply to any of the other races who occupy the peninsula, or to people who live in it for a shorter or a longer time.”
Lord Ogmore made the statement while discussing the constitutional compromises involved in forming an independent Malaya.
He highlighted issues including citizenship, religion, language, the special position of Malays and the status of Penang and Malacca.
However, his remarks were also accompanied by a call for cooperation among all communities. He stated:
“All the races and all the peoples in the Federation of Malaya, to help wholeheartedly in the working of the Constitution.”
This indicated that while Lord Ogmore acknowledged the special historical relationship between Malays and Tanah Melayu, he also recognised that the newly independent nation required the participation and cooperation of all citizens.
The essence of the four statements is the same
When my speech is compared with the statements of Oliver Stanley, Lord Killearn and Lord Ogmore, similarities can be identified.
Oliver Stanley described Tanah Melayu as:
“the traditional home of the Malays.”
Lord Killearn referred to it as:
“the land of the Malays.”
Lord Ogmore stated:
“Malaya is the Malays’ only home.”
I expressed the same idea by saying:
“Melayu ada Tanah Melayu ni saja.” (Malays only have this Tanah Melayu)
All four statements, I argue, reflect the same historical premise — that Tanah Melayu has a special historical, political and cultural connection with the Malays.
This relationship can be seen through the existence of Malay states, the institution of Malay rulers, the Malay language, Malay customs, Islam’s role in the history of the states and the use of the name Federation of Malaya.
Therefore, my speech was not an extraordinary or newly created idea, but a political expression of a historical recognition that had previously appeared in British parliamentary records.
If expressions such as “Tanah Melayu is the traditional homeland of the Malays”, “Tanah Melayu is the land of the Malays” and “Tanah Melayu is the only homeland of the Malays” are accepted as historical observations when stated by Oliver Stanley, Lord Killearn and Lord Ogmore, then statements carrying the same essence should not be labelled racist when I make them.
Any assessment of a statement must be based on its meaning, context and the speaker’s overall speech, rather than solely on the identity or political position of the speaker.
Recognising Malay identity is not denying citizenship
It must be clarified that stating Tanah Melayu is the historical homeland of Malays does not mean saying that non-Malay Malaysians do not have rights over Malaysia.
Oliver Stanley recognised Tanah Melayu as the traditional homeland of Malays while rejecting the idea that Chinese and Indian communities should remain stateless visitors.
Lord Killearn described Tanah Melayu as the land of the Malays while acknowledging that other racial factors must also be considered.
Lord Ogmore stated that Tanah Melayu was the only homeland of Malays while calling on all communities to help build the new nation.
Likewise, in another part of my speech, I stated that Malays can live peacefully and harmoniously with a multicultural society.
I mentioned that Chinese traders could open businesses and operate in Malay villages without interference, while emphasising: “We do not disturb others.”
Therefore, my speech should be understood as a concern regarding the political and economic position of Malays, not as a call for Malaysian citizens of Chinese or Indian descent to leave the country.
Chinese and Indian Malaysians who are citizens have constitutional rights, loyalty and a sense of belonging towards Malaysia. Malaysia is their homeland as citizens.
At the same time, this does not erase the historical fact that the peninsula developed from Malay states and that the country which gained independence in 1957 was named the Federation of Malaya.
Both truths do not contradict each other.
Different contexts do not erase similarities in ideas
Of course, there are differences in context between these speeches.
Oliver Stanley spoke during the Malayan Union debate in 1946. Lord Killearn discussed self-government in 1949. Lord Ogmore spoke when independence was being finalised in 1957. I delivered my speech during the 2026 Negeri Sembilan state election campaign.
The tone and style were also different, as my remarks were delivered in a political speech while their statements were recorded during parliamentary debates.
However, differences in background, tone and purpose do not erase the similarities in essence.
All recognised that Tanah Melayu had a special historical relationship with the Malays.
Therefore, it is inaccurate for anyone to isolate my statement and portray it as an attempt to question the citizenship of Chinese and Indian Malaysians, when the full speech showed that my argument focused on the historical relationship between Malays and Tanah Melayu as well as concerns over Malay political and economic standing.
Conclusion
My speech on July 23 shares clear textual and conceptual similarities with the speeches of Oliver Stanley on March 8, 1946, Lord Killearn on April 13, 1949, and Lord Ogmore on July 29, 1957.
Oliver Stanley described Tanah Melayu as the traditional homeland of Malays. Lord Killearn referred to it as the land of the Malays. Lord Ogmore stated that Tanah Melayu was the only homeland of Malays. I expressed the same historical premise by stating that Malays only have Tanah Melayu.
All these statements are based on the same historical understanding.
Therefore, my speech should not be portrayed as a call to expel, reject or deny the citizenship of non-Malay Malaysians.
Such an interpretation goes beyond the words spoken and ignores the context of my full speech.
The Hansard records from 1946, 1949 and 1957 show that the idea of Tanah Melayu as a historical territory and the only homeland of Malays had long been acknowledged in official British parliamentary records.
It was not created by me, nor is it merely political rhetoric that emerged in 2026.
Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor is the Kedah Menteri Besar.