132

CABLEGRAM TO WASHINGTON

Canberra, 4 November 1963

  1. SECRET

Malaysia

Your 2926.1

We would like you to continue discussion with Cuthell on Tunku’s attitude to Indonesia. You should say in first place, that we believe that the Tunku on the whole has been moderate in his public behaviour considering the treatment which he received following the Manila meetings and the daily abuse which is heaped on him by Radio KMM and Radio Kalimantan Utara.2 His reported private comments to Congressmen have not, so far, been echoed in his public comments. We do not favour the burning of effigies, stamping on national emblems, etc., but the Americans may still not fully comprehend the serious and immediate problem which the Malaysian Government must tackle in securing national unity in the face of the Indonesian confrontation.

  1. You could then go on to say that we have been a little worried for some time about the Tunku’s overwhelming belief in the high quality of his intelligence about Indonesian internal situation. Matters are not helped by the virulent anti-Indonesian sentiments of some of his advisers and their attraction to the idea of working on Sumatran separatist tendencies. You might say that we, i.e. the United States, United Kingdom and ourselves, might all work [a] little more towards having calm and detailed discussions with the Malaysian Government on Indonesian internal affairs.

  2. We shall continue to do what we can in Kuala Lumpur to restrain the Tunku, but while our relations with Malaysia are obviously close, there are limitations to our influence in matters which impinge upon the very existence of the form of Government which the Alliance stands for.

  3. You could point to our telegram 27303 as an indication that providing there is a reasonable and honourable basis, we will continue to encourage the Tunku to keep a flexible mind on the question of Malaysia’s relations with her neighbours.

For Kuala Lumpur: Glad to have your comments.4 In particular we would like to know if American Embassy has given you a similar account of the United States Congressional team’s interview with the Tunku.5

[matter omitted]

[NAA: A1838, 3027/10/1/1 ]

  1. Document 130. ↩

  2. See footnote 4, Document 128. ↩

  3. The correct number of the referenced cablegram is 2731, dated 12 October. ↩

  4. Critchley replied that the Tunku had ‘occasionally’ spoken of the political reconstitution of Indonesia, claiming that a unitary state of Indonesia was ‘unrealistic because historically it has consisted of a number of states with separate identities and interests’, and that a federal structure would better ‘accord with the popular wishes of the Indonesian people and provide a basis for stability in the region’. Critchley also commented that there were strong anti-Indonesian sentiments held by Ghazali and a number of Malaysian officials of influence but that Razak and other senior ministers were more moderate and exercising a restraining influence. On the intelligence question, Critchley said that Malaysian External Affairs officers had hinted at their interest in an exchange of information on Indonesia up to ‘Secret’ level. ↩

  5. Critchley reported that Baldwin had given him a similar, but brief, account of the interview. ↩

Date

4 November 1963

Sources
Related documents