Repost: National Day & Independence Day - Any Significant Difference?

The following is a post I put up on 17 February 2007 complaining about the re-writing of Malaysian history. Now that the my main bone of contention is approaching (31 August) it is time for a re-read. I brought thsi issue up with a journalist at the New Straits Times as they run Merdeka (independence) special stories everyday to commemorate the event, but clearly they cannot even be bothered to at least put up an article that speaks of the truth-but why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

A brief historical run down. The Federation of Malaya was formed on 31 August 1957. The Federation of Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963 incorporating 4 entities (Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak). Singapore subsequently left in 1965. The original plan was to have the federation formed on 31 August 1963 but due to objections by Indonesia and the Philippines it was delayed 17 days. Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became self-governing entities on 31 August 1963 as the British ceded control, and became part of the NEW country called Malaysia on 16 September 1963.

Ok, here's the original post.

Once again, for the umpteenth time I read a newpaper article about 50 years of independence-once again based on the false premise of 31 August 1957. First I need to make clear two points:

(a) The press freely trumpets Malaysia's impending 50th year of independence when that is clearly false-Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963, and,
(b) that, at the very least, in the spirit of compromise and understanding the concept of independence and national days need to be distinguised, as far as Malaysia is concerned.

History is very clear on one thing blatantly ignored by practically all and sundry: that the Federation of Malaya was formed on 31 August 1957 upon being granted independence by the British. The Federation of Malaya than joined forces with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah (then North Borneo) to form the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963.

Obviously, Malayan independence remains an important facet of Malaysian history. This is due to a number of reasons, not least the pride many have for the successes Malaysia has achieved in its short history as an independent nation. But it is also important because it is presented in school history textbooks in a manner that implies that Malayan history is the default Malaysian history. This is clear when we witness the paucity of history pertaining to both Sabah and Sarawak in our high school history textbooks.

I'm not going to attack those who couldn't be bothered about this matter-certainly, there are more important issues afflicting the country than the supposed day of celebration to denote one of two events (independence and/or national day). However, until such time as the nation's citizens understand the proper history of the country, we cannot pretend to know our country. History needs to be painted accurately, as much as possible, a position historians Herodotus onwards endeavour to make clear despite continuous attempts by politicians and parties with vested interests to skew history in their favour.

At a time when Malaysia Day is not even a public holiday (except in Sabah where it is shared with the Governor's official birthday) it is imperative that a more accurate depiction of the nation is presented without throwing out the recent past. By this I mean that 31 August is now firmly etched in the minds of the people to the extent that 16 September simply is not going to raise the same level of unity. As well, the vested powers will no doubt oppose such a change-it would be an admission of guilt of the continuing chauvinism shown by the federal government towards Sabah and Sarawak. And to be fair, the misrepresentation of history has already made many Sabahans (I don't know about Sarawakians) ambivalent about such issues.

Tunku Abdul Rahman wanted Malaysia to come into being on 31 August 1963 and everything was going as planned until Indonesian and Filipino objections forced the UN to send the Cobbold Commission to ascertain the views of Sabahan and Sarawakians. They found in favour of the formation of Malaysia which eventually occurred on 16 September 1963. However, in the interim the British vacated Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore and these three territories governed themselves in this period. In a sense, independence arrived in these 3 territories on 31 August 1963.

Now, why can't we celebrate independence day on 31 August but without a reference year? Who cares if it is 1957 or 1963?; at least it is a true reflection of independence. National day then need no longer be on 31 August as well, for it is clearly not the national day. Malaysia Day is the national day, and must remain on the 16th of September, and be played up more in the national psyche as opposed to 31 August.

This is not even a debate, except when Pairin brought it up during his tenure in opposition. Now that he's back in government, he shuts up. It is a pity that 44 (and not 50!) years since the country has come into being that it cannot even celebrate on the right day. Perhaps a compromise on 31 August is a fair way to make things right. But I wouldn't bother holding my breath. If it ever occurs at all, it'll be a long time from now when Malaysians can truly be free to debate such issues without the overriding caveat (in the hands of the government) that we are disrupting national unity and hence, an excuse to shut the debate down. A debate that will embarass the government no end.


  1. It's been interesting to read such free-flowing comments on the subject of the Origins of the
    Malays. While we are on the subject, how many of you have read the book entitled
    "Contesting Malayness - Malay Identity Across Boundaries" Edited by Timothy P. Barnard
    published by Singapore University Press?

    Written by a Professor of National University of Singapore. It reflects the Anthropologists
    views that there is no such race as the "Malays" to begin with. If we follow the original
    migration of the Southern Chinese of 6,000yrs ago, they moved into Taiwan, (now the
    Alisan), then into the Phillipines (now the Aeta) and moved into Borneo (4,500yrs ago)
    (Dayak). They also split into Sulawesi and progressed into Jawa, and Sumatera. The final
    migration was to the Malayan Peninsular 3,000yrs ago. A sub-group from Borneo also moved
    to Champa in Vietnam at 4,500yrs ago.

    Interestingly, the Champa deviant group moved back to present day Kelantan. There are also
    traces of the Dong Song and HoaBinh migration from Vietnam and Cambodia. To confuse the
    issue, there was also the Southern Thai migration, from what we know as Pattani today. (see
    also "Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsular")

    Of course, we also have the Minangkabau's which come from the descendants of Alexander
    the Great and a West Indian Princess. (Sejarah Melayu page 1-3)

    So the million Dollar Question... Is there really a race called the "Malays"? All anthropologists
    DO NOT SEEM TO THINK SO. (strangely, this includes all Malay Malaysian Anthropologists
    who are of the same opinion.)

    Neither do the "Malays" who live on the West Coast of Johor. They'd rather be called Javanese.
    What about the west coast Kedah inhabitants who prefer to be known as "Achenese"? or the
    Ibans who simply want to be known as IBANS. Try calling a Kelabit a "Malay" and see what
    response you get... you’ll be so glad that their Head-Hunting days are over.

    In an article in the Star, dated: Dec 3rd 2006

    available for on-line viewing at:

    An excerp is reproduced here below:

    "The Malays – taken as an aggregation of people of different ethnic backgrounds but who
    speak the same language or family of languages and share common cultural and traditional
    ties – are essentially a new race, compared to the Chinese, Indians and the Arabs with their
    long histories of quests and conquests.

    The Malay nation, therefore, covers people of various ethnic stock, including Javanese, Bugis,
    Bawean, Achehnese, Thai, Orang Asli, the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak and
    descendants of Indian Muslims who had married local women.

    Beneath these variations, however, there is a common steely core that is bent on changing
    the Malay persona from its perceived lethargic character to one that is brave, bold and ready
    to take on the world. "

    The definition of “Malay” is therefore simply a collection of people's who speak a similar type
    language. With what is meant by a similar type language does not mean that the words are
    similar. (A native Kelantanese native speaker has no clue whatsoever what his Iban native
    brother is talking about; if both speak their own dialect) Linguists however, call this the
    "Lego-Type" language, where words are added on to the root word to make meaning and
    give tenses and such. Somehow, the Indonesians disagree with this "Malay" classification and
    insist instead on being called "Indonesians" even though the majority of "Malays" have their
    roots in parts of Indonesia. They refuse to be called "Malay"…. Anyhow you may define it.

    The writer failed to identify (probably didn't know), that the "Malay" definition also includes,
    the Champa, Dong Song, HoabinHian, The Taiwanese Alisan and the Philippino Aetas. He also
    did not identify that the "Orang Asli" are (for lack of a better term) ex-Africans. If you try to
    call any one of our East Malaysian brothers an "Orang Asli", they WILL BEAT YOU UP! I had to
    repeat this because almost all West Malaysians make the same mistake when we cross the
    South China Sea. Worse, somehow, they feel even more insulted when you call them “Malay”.
    Somehow, “kurang ajar” is uttered below their breath as if “Malay” was a really bad word for
    them. I’m still trying to figure this one out.

    Watch “Malays in Africa”; a Museum Negara produced DVD. Also, the “Champa Malays” by the

    With this classification, they MUST also include the Phillipinos, the Papua New Guineans, the
    Australian Aboroginies, as well as the Polynesian Aboroginies. These are of the Australo
    Melanesians who migrated out of Africa 60,000yrs ago.

    Getting interesting? Read on...

    "Malay" should also include the Taiwanese singer "Ah Mei" who is Alisan as her tribe are the
    anscestors of the "Malays". And finally, you will need to define the Southern Chinese
    (Southern Province) as Malay also, since they are from the same stock 6,000yrs ago.

    Try calling the Bugis a "Malay". Interestingly, the Bugis, who predominantly live on Sulawesi
    are not even Indonesians. Neither do they fall into the same group as the migrating Southern
    Chinese of 6,000yrs ago nor the Australo Melanesian group from Africa.

    Ready for this?

    The Bugis are the cross-breed between the Mongolian Chinese and the marauding Arab
    Pirates. (FYI, a runaway Ming Dynasty official whom Cheng Ho was sent to hunt down)
    Interestingly, the Bugis, (just like their Arabic ancestors) were career Pirates in the Johor-Riau
    Island areas. Now the nephew of Daeng Kemboja was appointed as the First Sultan of
    Selangor. That makes the entire Selangor Sultanate part Arab, part Chinese! Try talking to the
    Bugis Museum curator near Kukup in Johor. Kukup is located near the most south-western
    tip of Johor. (Due south of Pontian Kechil) He is more than willing to expound on the Bugis
    heritage. Buy him lunch and he can talk for days on end.

    Let's not even get into the Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekiu, and Hang Lekir,
    who shared the same family last name as the other super famous "Hang" family member...
    Hang Li Poh. And who was she? Legend tells us that she is the Princess of a Ming Dynasty
    Emperor who was sent to marry the Sultan of Malacca. Won't that make the entire Malacca
    Sultanate downline "Baba" ? Since the older son of the collapsed Malaccan Sultanate got killed
    in Johor, (the current Sultanate is the downline of the then, Bendahara) the only other son
    became the Sultan of Perak. Do we see any Chinese-ness in Raja Azlan? Is he the descendant
    of Hang Li Poh? But wait a minute....

    That's what legend says. Let's look at the proof. The solid evidence. There is a well next to
    the Zheng He Temple in Malacca which is supposed to be the well built by the Sultan of
    Malacca for Hang Li Poh. According to legend, anyone who drinks of it shall re-visit Malacca
    before they die. Hmmm smells like a romantic fairy tale already. But let's look at who Hang Li
    Poh actually is. Which Ming Emperor was she a daughter to? So I got into researching the
    entire list of Ming Emperors. Guess what? Not a single Ming Emperor's last name begins with
    Hang. In fact, all their last names begin with Tzu (pronounced Choo). So who is Hang Li Poh?
    An Extra Concubine? A Spare Handmaiden? Who knows? But one thing for certain, is that she
    was no daughter of any of the Ming Emperors. Gone is the romantic notion of the Sultan of
    Malacca marrying an exotic Chinese Princess. Sorry guys, the Sultan married an unidentified
    Chinese commoner.

    Next question. If the Baba’s are part Malay, why have they been marginalized by NOT BEING
    BUMIPUTERA? Which part of “Malay” are they not? Whatever the answer, why then are the
    Portugese of Malacca BUMIPUTERA? Did they not come 100yrs AFTER the arrival of the first
    Baba’s? Parameswara founded Malacca in 1411. The Portugese came in 1511, and the Dutch
    in the 1600’s. Strangely, the Baba’s were in fact once classified a Bumiputera, but some
    Prime Minister decreed that they were to be strangely “declassified” in the 1960’s. WHY? How
    can a "native son of the soil" degenerate into an "un-son"? The new classification is
    "pendatang" meaning a migrant to describe the Baba's and Nyonyas. Wait a minute, isn't
    EVERYONE on the Peninsular a migrant to begin with? How can the government discriminate?
    Does the Malaysian Government have amnesia?

    The Sultan of Kelantan had similar roots to the Pattani Kingdom making him of Thai origin.
    And what is this "coffee table book" by the Sultan of Perlis claiming to be the direct
    descendant of the prophet Muhammed? Somehow we see Prof Khoo Khay Khim’s signature
    name on the book. I’ll pay good money to own a copy of it myself. Anyone has a spare?

    In persuing this thread, and having looked at the history of Prophet Muhammed (BTW, real
    name Ahmad) we couldn't figure out which descendant line The Sultan of Perlis was. Perhaps
    it was by the name Syed, which transcended. Then we tried to locate which downline did the
    Sultan descend from of the 13 Official Wives of Prophet Muhammad named in the Holy
    Koran? Or was the Sultan of Perlis a descendant from the other 23 non-wives? Of the 13
    Official Wives were (at least known) 3 Israeli women. Then you should come to this instant
    revelation, isn't Prophet Muhammad an Israeli himself? Yes, the answer is clear. All
    descendants of Moses are Israeli. In fact, the Holy Koran teaches that Moses was the First
    Muslim. Thus confirming all the descendants of Moses to be Israeli, including Jesus and
    Prophet Muhammad. It is also found in Sura 2:58&59 which specifically mentions that the
    Torah/ Talmud (Jewish) and the Kitab (Bible) are Holy Words of Allah. But since this is not a
    Religious or a Theological discussion, let's move on to a more anthropological approach.

    So, how many of you have met with the Orang Asli’s (Malaysian Natives)? The more northern
    you go, the more African they look. Why are they called Negrito’s? It is a Spanish word, from
    which directly transalates “mini Negros”. The more southern you go, the more “Indonesian”
    they look. And the ones who live at Cameron Highlands kinda look 50-50. You can see the
    Batek at Taman Negara, who really look like Eddie Murphy to a certain degree. Or the
    Negritos who live at the Thai border near Temenggor Lake (north Perak). The Mah Meri in
    Carrie Island look almost like the Jakuns in Endau Rompin. Half African, half Indonesian.

    Stangely the natives in Borneo all look rather Chinese in terms of features and facial
    characteristics especially the Kelabits in Bario.

    By definition, (this is super eye-opening) there was a Hindu-Malay Empire in Kedah. Yes, I
    said right… The Malays were Hindu (just like the gentle Balinese of today). It was known by
    it's old name, Langkasuka. Today known as Lembah Bujang. This Hindu-Malay Empire was
    2,000yrs old. Pre-dating Borrobudor AND Angkor Watt. Who came about around 500-600yrs
    later. Lembah Bujang was THE mighty trading Empire, and its biggest influence was by the
    Indians who were here to help start it. By definition, this should make the Indians
    BUMIPUTERAS too since they were here 2,000yrs ago! Why are they marginalized?

    The Malaysian Government now has a serious case of Alzheimer's. Why? Simply because, they
    would accord the next Indonesian who tomorrow swims accross the Straits of Malacca and
    bestow upon him with the apparently "prestigious title" of the Bumiputra status alongside
    others who imply have inhabited this land for hundreds of centuries. (prestigious, at least
    perceived by Malays) They also have a strange saying called "Ketuanan Melayu" which literally
    transalates into "The Lordship of Malays" The Malays still cannot identify till this day "who" or
    "what" the Malays have "Lordship" over. And they celebrate it galantly and triumphantly by
    waving the Keris (wavy knife which has Hindu origins in Borrobudor. Ganesan is seen
    brandishing the Keris in a bass-relief sculpture.) during public meetings over National TV
    much like a Pagan Wicca Ceremony on Steroids. Let's all wait for that official press release to
    see who the "Malays" have Lorship over, shall we?

    Of the 3 books listed, "Contesting Malayness" (about S$32 for soft cover) is "banned” in
    Malaysia; you will need to "smuggle" it into Malaysia; for very obvious reasons.... :( or read it
    in Singapore if you don’t feel like breaking the law. Incidentally, the Professor (Author) was
    invited to speak on this very subject circa 2 yrs ago, in KL, invited by the MBRAS. You can
    imagine the "chaos" this seminar created...... :( Fortunately the FRU was not called in.

    The other, "Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago, and the Malay Peninsular" (about RM84)
    are openly sold at all leading bookshops; Kinokuniya, MPH, Borders, Popular, Times, etc. You
    should be able to find a fair bit of what I’ve been quoting in this book too, but mind you, it is
    extremely heavy reading material, and you will find yourself struggling through the initial
    200+ pages. It is extremely technical in nature. Maybe that’s why it hasn’t been banned (yet)
    …coz our authorities couldn’t make head or tail of it? (FYI, if I wasn’t doing research for my
    film, I wouldn’t have read it in its entirety)

    The "Sejarah Melayu" (about RM 50) however, is freely available at the University Malaya
    bookshop. I have both the English and Royal Malay version published by MBRAS.
    Alternatively, you could try reading the Jawi (Arabic Script) version if you are truly a sucker
    for unimaginable pain...... (may feel like circumcision)

    There are actually many sources for these Origins of Malays findings. Any older Philippino
    Museum Journal also carries these migration stories. This migration is also on display at the
    Philippines National Museum in Luzon. However, they end with the Aeta, and only briefly
    mention that the migration continued to Indonesia and Malaysia, but fully acknowledge that
    all Philippinos came from Taiwan. And before Taiwan, China. There is another book (part of a
    series) called the "Archipelago Series" endorsed by Tun Mahatir and Marina Mohammad,
    which states the very same thing right at the introduction on page one. “… that the Malays
    migrated out of Southern China some 6,000yrs ago…”. I believe it is called the “Pre-History
    of Malaysia” Hard Cover, about RM99 found in (mostly) MPH. They also carry “Pre-History of
    Indonesia” by the same authors for the same price.

    It is most interesting to note that the Malaysian Museum officials gallantly invented brand
    new unheard-of terms such as "Proto-Malay" and "Deutero-Malay", to replace the accepted
    Scientific Term, Australo-Melanesians (African descent) and Austronesians (Chinese Descent,
    or Mongoloid to be precise) in keeping in line with creating this new “Malay” term.. They also
    created the new term called the Melayu-Polynesian. (Which Melayu exists in the Polynesian
    Islands?) Maybe they were just trying to be “Patriotic” and “Nationalistic”… who knows…?
    After all, we also invented the term, “Malaysian Time”. While the rest of the world calls it
    “Tardy” and “Late”. It’s quite an embarrassment actually…. Singaporeans crossing the border
    are asked to set their watches back by about a 100yrs, to adjust to “Malaysian Time”…

    In a nutshell, the British Colonial Masters, who, for lack of a better description, needed a
    “blanket” category for ease of classification, used the term “Malay”.

    The only other logical explanation, which I have heard, was that “Malaya” came as a
    derivative of “Himalaya”, where at Langkasuka, or Lembah Bujang today was where the
    Indians were describing the locals as “Malai” which means “Hill People” in Tamil. This made
    perfect sense as the focal point at that time was at Gunung Jerai, and the entire Peninsular
    had a “Mountain Range” “Banjaran Titiwangsa”, as we call it.

    The Mandarin and Cantonese accurately maintain the accurate pronunciation of “Malai Ren”
    and “Malai Yun” respectively till this very day. Where “ren” and “yun” both mean “peoples”.

    Interestingly, “Kadar” and “Kidara”, Hindi and Sanskrit words accurately describe “Kedah” of
    today. They both mean “fertile Land for Rice cultivation. Again, a name given by the Indians
    2,000yrs ago during the “Golden Hindu Era” for a duration of 1,500yrs.

    It was during this “Golden Hindu Era” that the new term which the Hindu Malay leaders also
    adopted the titles, “Sultan” and “Raja”. The Malay Royalty were Hindu at that time, as all of
    Southeast Asia was under strong Indian influence, including Borrobudor, and Angkor Watt.
    Bali today still practices devout Hindu Beliefs. The snake amulet worn by the Sultans of today,
    The Royal Dias, and even the “Pelamin” for weddings are tell-tale signs of these strong Indian
    influences. So, it was NOT Parameswara who was the first Sultan in Malaya. Sultanage existed
    approximately 1,500yrs in Kedah before he set foot on the Peninsular during the "Golden
    Hindu Era" of Malaysia. And they were all Hindu.

    “PreHistory of Malaysia” also talks about the “Lost Kingdom” of the “Chi-Tu” where the local
    Malay Kingdom were Buddhists. The rest of the “Malays” were Animistic Pagans.

    But you may say, "Sejarah Melayu" calls it "Melayu"? Yes, it does. Read it again; is it trying to
    describe the 200-odd population hamlet near Palembang by the name "Melayu"?(Google
    Earth will show this village).

    By that same definition, then, the Achehnese should be considered a “race”. So should the
    Bugis and the Bataks, to be fair. Orang Acheh, Orang Bugis, Orang Laut, Orang Melayu now
    mean the same… descriptions of ethnic tribes, at best. So some apparently Patriotic peron
    decided to upgrade the Malays from Orang Melayu (Malay People) to Bangsa Melayu (Malay
    Race) Good job in helping perpetuate the confusion. And since the “Malays” of today are not
    all descendants of the “Melayu” kampung in Jambi (if I remember correctly), the term Melayu
    has been wrongly termed. From Day One. Maybe this is why the Johoreans still insist on
    calling themselves either Bugis, or Javanese til today (except when it comes to receiving
    Government Handouts). So do the Achehnese on the West coast of Kedah & Perlis and the
    Kelantanese insist that they came from Champa, Vietnam.

    Morover, the fact that the first 3 pages of "Sejarah Melayu" claim that "Melayu" comes from
    Alexander the Great and the West Indian Princess doesn't help. More importantly, it was
    written in 1623. By then, the Indians had been calling the locals “Malai” for 1,500 yrs already.
    So the name stuck….

    And with the Sejarah Melayu (The Malay Annals in page 1-3) naming the grandson of
    Iskandar Zulkarnain, and the West Indian Princess forming the Minangkabau. Whenever a
    Malay is asked about it, he usually says it is "Karut" (bullshit), but all Malayan based
    historians insist on using Sejarah Melayu as THE main reference book for which "Malay"
    history is based upon. The only other books are “Misa Melayu”, "Hikayat Merong
    Mahawangsa", "Hikayat Pasai", "Hikayat Raja-Raja Siak" and “Hikayat Hang Tuah” among
    others; which sometimes brings up long and “heated” discussions.

    Interesting to note is one of the great "Malay" writers is called Munsyi Abdullah; who penned
    "Hikayat Abdullah" He was an Indian Muslim. Let's re-read that little bit. He was an Indian
    Muslim. How can an Indian change his race to be a Malay? He can change his shirt, his car,
    his religion and even his underwear, but how can anyone change his race? This must be The
    New Trick of the Century, which even David Copperfield will pay lots of money to watch (and
    perhaps learn).

    "Mysterious Race Changing Trick"- created by The Malaysian Government.

    Still, Malaysians are still only second to the Jews (who by the way, are the only other people
    in the world who are defined by a religion) So perhaps David Copperfield has yet to learn a
    few tricks on the mass deception skills of the Malaysian Government?

    Malaysia Boleh...

    I find this strange.

    I also find, that it is strange that the "Chitti's" (Indian+Malay) of Malacca are categorized as
    Bumiputera, while their Baba brothers are not. Why? Both existed during the Parameswara
    days. Which part of the “Malay” side of the Baba’s is not good enough for Bumiputera
    classification? Re-instate them. They used to be Bumiputera pre 1960’s anyway.

    Instead of "Malay", I believe that "Maphilindo" (circa 1963) would have been the closest in
    accurately trying to describe the Malays. However, going by that definition, it should most
    accurately be "MaphilindoThaiChinDiaVietWanGreekCamfrica". And it is because of this; even
    our University Malaya Anthropology professors cannot look at you in the eye and truthfully
    say that the word "Malay" technically and accurately defines a race.

    This is most unfortunate.

    So, in a nutshell, the “Malays” (anthropologists will disagree with this “race” definition) are
    TRULY ASIA !!! For once the Tourism Ministry got it right….

    We should stop calling this country “Tanah Melayu” instead call it, “Tanah Truly Asia”

    You must understand now, why I was "tickled pink" when I found out that the Visit Malaysia
    slogan for 2007 was "Truly Asia". They are so correct... (even though they missed out
    Greece, and Africa)

    BTW, the name UMNO should be changed to UTANO the new official acronym for “United
    Truly Asia National Organization” . After all, they started out as a Bugis club in Johor anyway

    I told you all that I hate race classifications…. This is so depressing. Even more depressing is
    that the "malays" are not even a race; not since day one.

    “Truly Asia Boleh”

  2. Well, I only read your response-wish I had the time to learn all that you know, but damn, I have to work!!! Good to know that under all the suppression we suffer that ideas and debates are still burning bright in Malaysia. Keep up the good word!