The Other Malaysia

Following from the previous two lectures where we discussed the development of pre-modern polities in Southeast Asia, let us remember some salient points:

1. That up to the mid-19th century (re our discussion of Munshi Abdullah etc) there was still NO understanding of what the term ‘Malaya’ meant. The political entity that we recognise today as Malaysia (like Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand etc) was therefore a very late development that only began to take emerge with the gradual process of colonisation and colonial-capitalism’s propensity to expand and exercise its power within territorial limits, thereby introducing the notion of fixed political-geographical boundaries, that were a novel concept for much of Southeast Asia.

2. As Malaya/Malaysia (and Indonesia, Singapore etc) was an idea that was relatively late in coming, so were all the other features of modern colonial capitalism and the modern state. We noted that the concept of race and racial difference were likewise new ideas in the region, and that til today there is no organic vernacular equivalent in the local languages of Southeast Asia when it comes to the concept of ‘race’ and racial difference. The politics of race was thus both late and alien to the region, esp when contrasted to the relatively fluid sense of overlapping identities we discussed in weeks 1 and 2.

The key points that we need to remember from this weeks lecture:

Firstly, note that colonial-capitalism and the mode of colonisation employed in southeast asia were gradualist and that they also involved the active agency and collaboration of local elites. This explains in part how and why colonial power could be maintained over vast geographical distances and through the use of limited manpower and relatively small colonial armies.
Note also that colonial rule - introduced and backed by force of arms and the threat of potential violence - was further extended through non-military means that included ‘free’ trade, uneven and unequal trading alliances, the re-drawing and policing of trading networks and routes, the active cultivation of local compradore elites etc.

Secondly note that during the initial stages of colonisation (1800-1900) colonial capitalism began as a business venture with little or no references to any metanarrative of civilisational dominance, superior racial dominance, ‘justified’ colonisation, the ‘civilising mission’ etc. The practice of Dutch colonial operatives in Malacca and other port cities is a case in point, where the business (rather than cultural or religious) focus of the VOC colonial company were evident and foregrounded.

Thirdly the introduction of racial theory and the notion of racial/ethnic difference to complement and support the praxis of racialised capitalism only comes about with the development of theories of racial difference in Europe. (Here refer to our discussion on theories of race, racial/genetic types and classifications, the notion of ‘native weaknesses’ and related theories of native ‘auto-genocide’ etc.) Note also how the respective ethnic communities were at times willing agents in the process of hegemonising these concerns and theories.

NOTE again: Even by the time we get to the 1920s, there is still NO definitive idea of what ‘Malaya’ was, which demonstrates that colonial rule was not so much about nation-building but rather the creation of markets and the re-drawing of trade routes etc.

ALSO- Colonised economies were primarily intended to serve the needs of the colonial mother country and metropole, and as such were deliberately lopsided in their development. The prerogatives of colonial governmentality had more to do with the creation of exploitable territories (with surplus manpower as well as natural resources) and NOT nation-building. This also explains the poor standards of the colonial (as opposed to Western) educational system, and how/why colonial governmentality was more about the policing of colonial subjects rather than about political representation.

Bibliography and suggested reading:

Undoubtedly the best work on the theme of the ‘lazy native’ stereotype is the landmark study by Syed Hussein Alatas, entitled: The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th century and its function in the ideology of Colonial Capitalism. (Frank Cass, London. 1977). This should be compulsory reading for all those who wish to understand how and why the stereotypes of native Asians persist til today. In it Alatas also takes to task the leaders of post-colonial Malaysia who have internalised the logic of racial difference and race-based politics in their own respective political struggles.

For those who are interested in learning more about the manner in which racial difference was constructed through the use of the colonial census, we would refer you to the works of Charles Hirshman, in particular his two important essays: ‘The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya: Political Economy and Racial Ideology’, (in Sociological Forum (SF), Cornell University Press . Vol. 1. no.2. 1986); and The Meaning and Measurement of Ethnicity in Malaysia: An Analysis of Census Classifications’ (in Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 46: 3. 1987). These two essays are essential reading for this subject and they remain key studies on the subject.

Other important texts:

Patrick Brantlinger, Dying Races: Rationalising Genocide in the Nineteenth Century. In J.N Pieterse and Bhikhu Parekh, (eds). Decolonising the Imagination. Zed books, London. 1995.

J.N Pieterse and Bhikhu Parekh, (eds). Decolonising the Imagination. Zed books, London. 1995.

Barbara Watson Andaya and Leonard Andaya, ‘A History of Malaysia’, MacMillan Press, London, 1982.

For a critique of the colonial (as opposed to Western) educational system, look at William Roff’s ‘The Origins of Malay Nationalism’, too.