View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarBank@NUS IDEAS OF NATION AND MALAYNESS IN MALAYA 1809-1942: A HISTORY OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION SANDRA KHOR MANICKAM (B. A. HISTORY (HONS.), B. A. ECONOMICS (HONS.), UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA) A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2005 ii Acknowledgements This thesis was made possible by the kind assistance offered by several institutions and individuals. The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, Institute of the Malay World and Civilisation at the National University of Malaysia and University of Malaya made their libraries available to me which facilitated the completion of this thesis. The assistance of Timothy P. Barnard and Mark Emmanuel was also invaluable. Without the aid of their Jawi Transliteration Project (R-110-000-012-112), this thesis would not have been completed. For their supervision and suggestions, I extend my warmest thanks to Albert Lau and Timothy P. Barnard. I am grateful for the support of Ian Gordon, Paul Kratoska and Kelly Lau. I would also like to thank Philippa Levine for her encouragement and ideas from afar. The Singapore Buddies, the Lunch Girls, the graduate students of the History Department and my parents have all made my stay in Singapore a pleasure. Last but not least, thanks to Hoofd Ingrid Maria for being my companion throughout the journey. iii Table of Contents Introduction: 1 Studies of nation and studies of Malayness - Points of convergence Chapter 1: 17 British knowledge formation on Malaya through the lens of nation - Drawing boundaries Chapter 2: 36 Malays and Chinese “Others” in British Thinking of Malaya Chapter 3: 54 Court Writings in the Malay Archipelago - Different Worlds Chapter 4: 70 Malay Intellectuals - Changing Meanings of Malayness Chapter 5: 94 Malayness and Nation - Tools in the formation of an independent state Conclusion: 114 The Persistence of Ideas of Nation and Malayness Bibliography 118 iv Summary This thesis looks at the constitution of ideas of ‘nation’ and ‘Malayness’ by British, Malay and later, American authors. Nation and Malayness have typically been studied as inclusive and static. In combination, these terms are often equated to a ‘Malay nation’ or a ‘nation in Malaya’, both of which are imbued with late twentieth century understandings of Malayness. This thesis argues, however, that the meanings of these terms underwent change in the period in question, and exclusions were integral to the establishment of the their meanings. From 1809 to 1942, nation and Malayness were used strategically to further aims such as perpetuating colonialism, building a community and gaining independence. Particular understandings of the terms supported by British and Malay writers shared a similar basis in placing a group defined as Malays as the only indigenous group in Malaya. This construction of a native Malay subject, however, was made in opposition to groups defined as not Malay such as Chinese and Indians. Thus, in the early twentieth century, ideas of nation and Malayness on the Malay Peninsula resulted in the exclusion of particular groups of people from being thought as belonging to Malaya. When nation and Malayness were used in the 1930s and 40s to argue for independence, previous exclusions were incorporated into authors’ visions of an independent state. Both concepts were tools to exclude those who were seen as threatening or not belonging to a Malay nation in Malaya. These exclusions gained legitimacy with the doctrine of national self-determination. The doctrine placed the rights of indigenous people as paramount in determining the basis on which governance should be established, and naturalised the exclusions affected by the construction of an indigenous people. Thus prior to the Japanese Occupation of Malaya, a ‘nation in Malaya’ was synonymous with a ‘Malay nation’. These insights draw attention to nation and Malayness not as natural and ever-present, but as historically contingent. The presentation of nation as the main source of individual identification throughout time, and of Malayness as essentialised and racialised, are thus called into question. In the context of Malaya, the use of both terms were varied and strategic in order to affect particular exclusions which continue until today. 1 Introduction: Studies of nation and studies of Malayness - Points of convergence In an opinion article published in 2004 in the International Herald Tribune entitled “When the Malays cast their votes”, the author, Philip Bowring, writes: “This year more Malays have participated in reasonably free and fair national elections than will vote in the U.S. presidential election in November. …Of the four predominantly Malay nations [Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei], … only the tiny oil rich sultanate of Brunei cannot pass as a democracy. Is this a happy coincidence or a cultural statement with political and ethnic implications for the region?”1 Bowring’s article represents a ‘popular’ understanding of the meaning of the terms ‘Malay’ and ‘nation’, and their relationship to political entities today. His use of ‘Malay’ misleadingly evokes the idea of one ethnic base indigenous to the Malay Archipelago which coalesced into separate present day states. No mention is made of other ethnic groups who are citizens of these countries, or who have long been present in the Archipelago. The Chinese are specifically excluded from being considered indigenous since they are linked to another ethnic type and state. Bowring’s understandings of the Chinese is in opposition to his classification of Malays. Thus, he states that “China’s ambitions to control the South China Sea remains very much on the table to the discomfort to the Malays who occupy most of its coastline.” Finally, ‘nation’ seems to be a mixture of current states overlapping with a singular ethnic group, thereby making those states synonymous with a particular group. 1 Philip Bowring, “When the Malays cast their votes”, in International Herald Tribune, Wednesday, July 14, 2004, p. 7. 2 Bowring’s article illustrates the persistence of the links established between ideas of Malayness (or the condition of being Malay) and of nation which effects particular exclusions. Groups not considered as part of those terms are omitted from mention in the machinery of modern statehood and its history, or are presented as threatening elements. Nor is the article’s approach foreign to politicians in Malaysia itself. Khoo Boo Teik writes that in 2000, “casting about for a solution to the persistence of ‘Malay disunity’, [then Prime Minister] Mahathir tried playing the card that UMNO [United Malays National Organisation] habitually dusted off its’ shelves when the party was in trouble: the contrivance of a ‘Chinese threat’ to ‘Malay rights’.”2 The spectre of Chinese hostile towards Malays was evoked in order to implore Malays to support the political party in power. This was done by implying that the resulting unity would keep the Chinese population in check and would protect the Malay-centred foundations of Malaysia by extension. The Chinese, though citizens of Malaysia, are again seen as at odds with the assumed ethnic base of the country. The conceptions of nation and Malayness which naturalise exclusions of particular groups is explained partly by the way in which these terms are rendered static by many scholars. Nations are often studied as unchanging objects, instead of amorphous groupings. Definitions of the nation are offered so that the scholar is clear about the subject under consideration, often making the nation a category that stands outside of historical influences. The attempt to delimit the nation results in contradictory definitions, or a plurality of ‘types’ of nations which are also rigid and essentialised.3 Furthermore, if 2 Khoo Boo Teik, Beyond Mahathir: Malaysian Politics and its Discontents (London: Zed Books, 2003), p. 126. 3 See for instance the number of definitions offered in Nationalism, ed. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) and the insistence of Walker Connor that most scholars use 3 the nation is historicized, it is still studied as an object, albeit one that came about through historically inevitable forces. This approach is seen most clearly in the philosophy of Anthony D. Smith where he categorises loyalty towards the nation, nationalism, as a “powerful current, a vital force based on vivid sentiments and attachments to a pre- existing nation.”4 Though respectful of claims of nationalists, his approach does not explain why that “pre-existing nation” is of such interest at a particular point in time, particularly in the context of calls for state autonomy.5 Another aspect of nation studies is that the term is a signifier for those included in the group, instead of those not included. The emphasis on the former aspect of nation hides the other effect of delimiting groups, which is identifying who does not share membership. These common features of many studies on nation are also present in studies of Malayness. The condition of being Malay, which goes beyond simple ethnic categorisation, or Malayness, is presented in many studies as a clearly-defined and static group. This rhetorical device enables the scholar to talk of ‘Malays’ in the eighteenth century, for instance, and ‘Malays’ in Malaysia today in the same breath, referring to a supposedly similar group of people with the same cultural features. Parallel to studies of nation, even when Malayness is not assumed to be the same in the past as it is in the present, the process by which the present group of Malays (or rather, present understandings of what Malayness is) came about is seen to be historically inevitable. Thus, even though the issues defining Malays in Malaysia today revolve around adat ‘nation’ incorrectly. Walker Connor, “A Nation is a Nation, Is a State, Is an Ethnic Group, Is a…,” Walker Connor, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp.