Unpredictability has grown in Malaysian politics ever since former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad stepped down in 2003. For more than a decade, Chinese and other minorities have bristled at the official government discrimination known as the Bumiputra policy, which favors ethnic Malays at the expense of non-Malays. Ethnic Malays make up more than 65 percent of the population, followed by ethnic Chinese, who make up 26 percent and ethnic Indians, who make up approximately 8 percent. The Malay government established the flagship of pro-Bumiputra policies, the New Economic Policy, in 1970, in the aftermath of bloody riots between the majority Malays and the economically better-off minority Chinese. Mahathir needed to get a grip on rising social unrest, so he made the transfer of assets to ethnic Malays the centerpiece of his domestic policies as well. Establishing new business without some ethnic Malay ownership became illegal. Inefficiency resulted. The policy has since become deadweight around Malaysia's neck in its bid to become more regionally competitive as a foreign investment destination. The government recognizes this, but its hands remain tied, since the bulk of the population would rise up if its subsidies were cut. Much talk about rejuvenating the Malaysian economy by freeing it of the restraints imposed by the pro-Bumiputra policies, such as the Multimedia Super Corridor Plan, has occurred, but little real action over the scrapping of these rules has ensued. Upcoming elections are reinforcing the cycle of talk without action. Badawi is not bound by law to announce new elections until 2009, but he has kept alive the possibility that early elections will be called. Speculation that he could call snap elections has gone on for most of 2007, but little has come of it. If something eventually does, Badawi will time the election for when public support for the opposition is at its weakest and internal cohesion in his government at its strongest.  
 

Visiting Malaysia Then and Now P.2

In Malaya the British adopted a policy of "divide - and - rule", which largely contradicted the local tradition of fusion and integration. The ethnic boundaries constructed by the British were based on their stereotypes and preconceptions about their new subjects. Charles Hirschman portrayed these stereotypes in his article "The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya." The main argument of Hirsclunan' s article was that colonialism changed the way ethnicity was perceived and that it created "modern 'race relations' in Peninsular Malaysia, in the sense of impenetrable group boundaries.42 As a sociologist, his focus is naturally more on larger processes of development and their impact on the modern situation. A more purely historical analysis of the circumstances, however, has to pose different questions and will necessarily present different or additional conclusions.

Hirschman presented a convincing summary of the customary stereotypes held by the British regarding Malays, Chinese, and Indians. These stereotypes were widely applied. There is a wealth of writings by British officials, servicemen, entrepreneurs, and adventurers regarding their perception of and attitudes towards their new colonial subjects. The striking feature of such sources is that while they all conveyed a certain air of superiority, many of them portrayed the same people and circumstances in very different ways. These inconsistencies were reflected in inconsistent policies, and hence inconsistent treatment of people of the same ethnic group. Moreover, in matters of ethnic characterisation, an examination of the period reveals that the distinction of class within ethnic groups played an equally important role regarding a person's chances of receiving certain educational benefits or advancing economically. British educational policy in peninsular Malaya provides a striking example of the fact that with the separation of ethnic groups the British introduced a separation of classes that was often more insurmountable than ethnic divisions. This chapter will present a review and re­ interpretation of some of the traditional stereotypes and inquire into their effects on the practice and results of British educational policy. It will also address the impact of class upon stereotypes and policies, and establish that the well to-do, leading classes were perceived quite differently from the relatively poor masses of the same ethnic groups.

William Roff's monograph on The Origins of Malay Nationalism and Philip Loh Fook Seng's monograph Seeds of Separatism: Educational Policy in Malaya, 1874-1940 will help to show that non-British critics of the situation in the colony largely concerned themselves with suggesting solutions to the problems of their own ethnic group, rather than with fmding fault in other ethnic groups. These critics, be it vernacular school educated Malay intellectuals or Chinese schoolteachers, were closely watched by the British authorities, since as modem activists they were acting outside the ethnic and class boundaries that had been defined for them.

In the mid to late nineteenth century Britain's main interest in the Malay peninsula lay in trade and economic profit. Only where these were threatened by local skirmishes did they intervene. The British policy that was established for dealing with the people of Malaya, excluding the Chinese and Indians, who were seen as more useful and  developed non-permanent residents, was one of preservation and protection from outside influences that might change the natives' ways and practices.43

Hirschman consciously divided European stereotypes about Malays into three categories, those of paternalism, Malay capacities, and Malay laziness. He pointed out that these stereotypes evolved and built upon each other. Since the British viewed Malays as lazy and not as able as other races, the British took much of their responsibility for government away, which eventually led to a paternalist attitude towards them. In his analysis of John Cameron, who wrote in 1865, Hirschman found a positive comparison between the Malays and the English.44 This is something that is also reflected in Frank Swettenham's writing, much of which was done in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. He recorded his experiences in the Malay states in several volumes of writing.

His titles alone suggest that he tried to capture "the true Malay" in his own environment.While he was writing from the perspective ofa "superior observer," his attitude was more generous and benevolent than those found in other sources. His descriptions provided insight into the separation of the Malays into two classes with striking differences in living standards. His positive descriptions are usually limited to upper class Malays.45

Presumably this distinction of class did not receive much description or attention from the British officials, since most of them came from the upper class of a similarly divided society. Therefore it must have seemed natural to not only create an ethnically stratified society, but also one that applied a wholly different policy to the Malay upper class, resulting in a class boundary that was practically impossible to overcome.

Critics such as Munshi Abdullah, an early liberal Malay (1797-1854) who deplored the Malay upper classes for their unjust and tyrannical government, opium excesses, gambling, and their lack of education. cleanliness, and law and order, were joined by European opinion of the time; but rather than introduce a more merit based system, the British continued to further separate the Malay upper class from the mass of people.46

Hendrik Maier's work on the Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa presents an analysis of British stereotypes based on Malay writings. He studied the significance of the text as a base of political decisions, and as a source of prejudice against its native authors/scribes and listeners. The first Westerners to encounter the Hikayat were the British "merchant ­ scientists:' James Low in particular. Based on the thought and value system of the Scottish Enlightenment, Low made attempts to separate what he described as facts from fiction by taking segments of the Hikayat that could be verified using accepted Western sources. Low's facts were mainly concerned with geographical reference points. During the dispute over tributes to Siam, the Hikayat was treated as a legal document that provided a valid excuse for British non-intervention in the conflict. A century later the "merchant-scientists" had been replaced by the "scholar-administrators." During this period the whole genre of Hikayats and other native writings fell into disregard, mainly due to their style, which did not fit Western conceptions of the "science" of history. Here Maier shows how Richard Winstedt nearly completely ignored the Hikayat when he rewrote the history ofKedah, based mainly on Western sources.47

Maier established the role of the Hikayat in local tradition as an entirely oral piece, which made use of very different styles and cues from written works; repetitions for example, were a necessary feature. He considered the texts in their original function, and explained that it was the different expectations that had been placed upon them over time, rather than the texts themselves, that created a negative perception of Malay literature. He argued that if the Hikayat was viewed without these expectations, its functions became clear. It was intended as a way to teach a largely illiterate population about their country, their rulers, and their enemies; at the same time it also legitimised the claims of the ruling house. On a more metaphysical level, it contained religious instruction, inspiration for a better way of life, and provided entertainment.

Maier concluded that old Malay texts were greatly overused by British colonial officials to judge Malay culture and aptitude, but that at the same time publications by Malay scholars, which may have helped to develop a better understanding, were largely ignored due to prejudice. This prejudice and perception was most often produced by the narrow questions and Western ftamework that were imposed on the Hikayats rather than by any failings of the texts themselves.48

Richard Winstedt, the same scholar-official who had rewritten the history of Kedah, was a member of the Malayan Civil Service; upon his return to Britain in 1935 he joined the faculty of London University where he taught courses on Malaya. In 1944 he published a work titled Britain and Malaya, 1786 -1941. Although an academic later in life, he retained many of his stereotypes about Malaya, which he then represented in his writing. According to Winstedt, Thomas Stamford Raffles displayed a "quite unusual   liking for the Asiatic and a humanitarian eagerness to expand British interests for the betterment of the Malay's lot.',49 He also commented that any policy aimed at uniting the people of Malaya would be hopeless, because the conflict between Malaya's ethnic groups rested upon irreconcilable religious differences. Here he cited the difficulty of setting up markets with the different dietary requirements, without acknowledging that multiethnic markets and ports were what had drawn the British to Malaya in the firt place.

Winstedt presented the British as the mediating force, not realising that they had mainly been a dividing force. In regards to this he stated further that the "least prominent of all on the Malayan scene was the white man, although his was the brain directing its politicallife."50 While he did not see a chance of fusion for Malaya's people, he admitted that there was successful socialising among people of different ethnic groups who had been educated together and worked in the same fields. He commented that "on the football field all Malayan races were not only free, but equal."5l Their inequality in other regards was demonstrated in his statement that "there was a strong department to look after the interests of the Chinese and another to ensure the welfare ofIndian labour. No special department was needed for Malay affairs, but care was taken to reserve lands for the sole use of Malays, and to save their holdings from the moneylenders."52 Within this statement Winstedt not only acknowledged the perceived differences between Malaya's ethnic groups, but also the unequal treatment they were given as a result. It implies that Chinese affairs were complex, whereas all that was really needed to satisfy the Indians ere labour rights. Worst off were the Malays who were considered unable to care for their own property, which naturally also excluded them from embarking upon any kind of sound business venture that may well have helped close the economic gap between ethnic groups. This stereotyping continued when Winstedt described the rulers of the Unfederated Malay States, who in his opinion lacked both the education and sophistication of ruling Malays in the Federated Malay States. Unfortunately, he did not reveal the source he quoted, but one can venture a guess that it was most likely one of his colleagues of the Civil Service who can be credited with the remark that visits to the UFMS "resembled those of foreign Secretaries on placatory missions to Hitler or Mussolini in the days before the war.53

Both Winstedt and Swettenham discussed the case of James Birch, who was Perak's first Resident. On 2 November 1875, Birch was murdered by local Malays for putting up government notices regarding tax matters. In the year previous to this event tension had been building between Birch and local rulers due to his ignorance of and disrespect for their culture. Winstedt concluded that the fmdings regarding the matter were fair, since the Singapore executive council acknowledged that Birch had provoked the chiefs, lacked respect for Malay custom, and that strictly speaking his involvement in local tax matters had been premature. Winstedt did not comment on the fact that despite these "fair findings", three men were hanged and another three exiled.54 Swettenham generally described Birch positively and simply concluded that this event helped to learn about the inner life of the Malay, and that it had made possible a fast takeover and integration of the area that otherwise would have taken years to complete.55 While Winstedt had at least acknowledged that Birch had provoked the local people. neither of the two commented on what could have driven Birch, in a moment of grave danger. To choose to take a bath rather than to seek reinforcements or to stay alert on his post. One can only assume that he truly must have believed himself so superior that he would not be touched.

Once the British had established themselves, they made good commercial use of the Chinese and Indian elements of the population, but only the Malays were given the right to own agricultural land; therefore, most Malays lived as peasants and landowners in the rural areas. The Malays also possessed special rights regarding admission to positions within the colonial administration and police. If a position was open to applicants of all ethnic groups, Malay applicants were still given preference. 56

The Indian community was mainly Tamil.5? Most were brought to the rubber plantations as labourers, but some also worked in the police force and in the lower colonial administration. The majority of the Chinese population worked as coolies or labourers in the tin mines; most of them were very poor. There was also a relatively large number of small traders and shopkeepers, with a small rich middle and upper class who were involved in more extensive trade and commerce of all kinds. Until the Japanese invasion. most Chinese lived in urban centres. mainly due to the fact that they could not purchase land to live on. After the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore. a large number of Chinese moved to rural areas and settled down as squatters, partly because of the persecution by the Japanese and partly because of the deteriorating wartime food situation in cities and towns. 58

In the British paternalistic view, the Malays and others had exploited the Orang Ash as slaves and inferiors. Generally, under colonial policy only Malays were allowed to obtain land. However, special reservations were established for the Orang Ash and a position for an overseer of indigenous welfare and preservation was created. While the initiative of the overseers, Pat Noone and later his brother, was laudable, the colonial government paid little attention to their suggestions and the Orang Asli were never given titles of land. 59 By the early twentieth century the variety of tribes had significantly decreased. Most tribes that were involved in fishing or settled agriculture had largely been assimilated into the Malay community. If there were remaining distinctions they ere too subtle to playa role in colonial administration. The administrative and legal integration of those tribes was finalised. Through these actions of the administration even the most secluded tribes of the high mountain ranges were brought into more frequent contact with outsiders.

Despite the wish of the British to preserve native life and identity, they also harboured a keen interest in forest products, ores and timber, which brought new forms of interactions and industry to the Orang Asli. There was also an increased exposure to European adventurers, anthropologists and botanists, who studied indigenous groups in some detail. The British colonial experiment in Malaya showed some marked differences from others across the region, including their own territory in Burma. They were intent on preserving not only the native culture but also its religion. Therefore the nwnber of Christian missionaries was much lower than in the surrounding European colonies. This is not to say that there was no missionary activity, but the law forbade missions in territories that were mainly settled by Malays, which usually surrounded the regions inhabited by the Orang Asli.60 In the early twentieth century, there was an upsurge in missionary activity, mainly by a curious mix of evangelical and socialist teachers. These groups saw the Orang AsH and their way of life as a kind of natural socialism.61 The colonial government intervened and ended their activities promptly; therefore very little long-term influence remained.

The British policy on education reflected Britain's desire to preserve Malay ways and therefore was, except for a tiny percentage of the upper class, restricted to four year of Malay vernacular education. This meant that only those who were already assimilated into Malay culture, such as the Jawi Peranakan, the Minangkabau, and other Malay speakers, were able to obtain any schooling at all for their children, but even then the standard of public vernacular schools in the late nineteenth and well into the early twentieth century was low and the graduation rates even lower. Also, most of the content of the lessons was based on the Koran and other Islamic teachings, which would have meant little to the Chinese, Tamils or Orang Asli.62

Philip Loh Fook Seng's monograph on education in Malaya, Seeds of Separatism,provides the key to understanding how the British structured and executed their venture of educating colonial subjects. Most educational influences came from India, where initially the British had practiced vernacular education, in an attempt to preserve native languages and cultures. Under sway of the liberal movement, in 1835 English language education was introduced to teach Western culture to the upper classes of British India. In British Malaya, there were elements of both approaches in the sense that after British control in the Malay states was established (beginning in 1874), steps were taken to provide English education for the upper classes and to introduce mandatory vernacular education for the rest of the population, which meant Koran readings in both alphabets, and introduction of arithmetic and geography, all taught in Malay. With the creation of the Federated Malay States (FMS) in 1895, this policy was extended to include both the Straits Settlements and the FMS. English education improved the situation of elites, but left out the general population. It was argued that the expense for general English education would be too high. British policy was to maintain a useful role for the traditional elites, which meant that the peasantry had to be maintained more or less as is, and therefore could not be educated beyond their social station.63

Early colonial schools had low attendance due to costs and Muslim parents' anxieties about the secularity of the schools. In fact, the British actually introduced fines for parents of non- attending children, prizes for punctuality, attendance, and distribution of quinine in schools. By 1895, one of three Malay boys was in school. However, schools were still held in low esteem by parents and many children did not finish the required four years. Frank Swettenham and others argued that English education would not serve the masses and could even be dangerous, since it would make the people discontent with what they had, whereas vernacular education would prepare them for their role in society and at the same time preserve indigenous culture. There were some small-scale English schools with mainly non-Malay pupils attached to Christian institutions in urban centres. To create capable, English speaking allies, the British opened the "raja school" in Selangor in 1890: as the name suggested it was run strictly for royalty and a few sons of important chiefs, to further their relationship with the British. Later the British colonial government established boarding schools such as the Kuala Kangsar College, which was modelled after Eton. The idea behind it was to provide the Federated Malay States With clerks, and, for the most promising pupils, admission into the Civil Service.64

In the early 1900s Richard Wilkinson was in charge of colonial schooling and he played an important role in establishing schools. He emphasised that any Malay who showed talent should be admitted; rather than adhere to admittance according to class, he wanted to give the Kuala Kangsar College a Malay character, and include Malay literature. Wilkinson also argued that the vernacular schools were of insufficient quality; teachers themselves lacked sufficient education, and the curriculum failed to create an interest in reading and study. After the British colonial government removed Wilkinson abruptly by abolishing his post, things regressed. His successor, Richard Winstedt returned the focus on making Malays better farmers and fishermen, who surpassed their fathers but still remained in their place. Winstedt's rural bias defined the system, and pepeated initiatives throughout the first decades of the twentieth century by the Chinese and Malays for English education for the upper and trading classes were rejected.65 Winstedt's comments on the educational system reveal much about his attitude.

He wrote that in English-language schools "all races, of all ranks of society sat side by side", and that there were many scholarships and free places available. And while he acknowledged certain failings of the vernacular school system, his statements directly contradicted the scarcity and the elitist character of especially English education.66

English-language education in Malaya was somewhat of a patchwork.Missionary schools were mostly used by Chinese and Tamil families without money,because missionary activity was forbidden in Malay areas. There was a growing demand for English schools inspired by the growth of the cash crop economy and the social prestige attached to white-collar jobs; indeed, many pupils left school as soon as they could become clerks. One of the problems was that Malays were required to have four years of vernacular education before they were allowed to enter any other institution, which often made them too old to enter English-language schools, since there were strictly enforced age restrictions. School inspector David Bishop argued in vain that English education would help the Malays to keep up with other ethnic groups. He saw them falling behind rapidly, especially since the Chinese had become sponsors of English education, having identified the economic and social benefits of doing so.67

From 1920 on, the colonial government financially supported all English schools, with the intent of providing a more equal footing for pupils and enhanced teacher  education. However, since the entry requirements remained much the same, nothing changed for the lower classes. This was confirmed by the rejection of appeals by local penghulus to establish English schools in villages. Even in the 1 920s the British were still reluctant to have a large educated class, since they feared discontent as in India because of a lack of suitable employment. Another argument was that the Malays would merge into the other races and lose their distinct characteristics and religion; yet another was that the peasantry would not respect a ruler who only had an English education.

Overall, education in colonial Malaya was elitist and mainly used by the Chinese,Tamils and a small Malay ruling elite. However, in the 1 920s new voices such as the Majalah Guru (Teacher's Magazine) surfaced which urged educated Malays to set their sights higher than government employment, which offered too few posts. Many who wrote for the Majalah Guru came from the Sultan Idris Training College. As these graduates returned to the villages as educators they raised a new awareness of social and economic problems of the Malay community.68

Education in the Chinese community was organised privately, usually within the dialect group. Initially, the curriculum was based on memorisation of classic texts, calligraphy, and composition. Some British government officials argued against the establishment of official Chinese schools, on the grounds that this would break down cultural barriers and lead to Chinese integration in Malay society. The anxiety was that the Chinese, who had thus far been treated as a transient part of the population, would claim citizens' rights that could pose a financial burden for the colonial government.

Additionally, it was argued that the Chinese character did not fit the British aim and concept of Malay schools. Therefore, Chinese education remained within the Chinese communities until the modernisation of Chinese schools in the early 1900s. After China's defeat by Japan in 1894, education of girls and modem subjects such as science were added to the Chinese schools abroad, since the need for modernisation was felt. Chinese refonners and the Revolutionary Party under Sun Yat Sen were involved in overseas Chinese education via funding and supplying of teachers. Although a politisation of Chinese schools started in the first decade of the twentieth century, the British did not get involved until after the Revolution of 1911, when many overseas Chinese supported the republic morally and fmancially. As schools became more and more political, and inspired protests such as the one against the Versailles treaty, Britain proposed a new school registration enactment to curtail the influence of the Kuomintang (the former Chinese Revolutionary party).69

The colonial government hoped to suppress Kuomintang activity in its Chinese schools by opening up a few free places in English schools to train Chinese teachers, and by firing anyone who seemed involved in subversive activities. Teachers had to be born in Malaya. Despite regular inspections of schools, however, political repression was largely ineffective.70 Richard Winstedt commented that Chinese schools were so resentful of government supervision that only half of them took the necessary measures to receive grants.71

 

Visiting Malaysia Then and Now P.1.

Visiting Malaysia Then and Now P.3.

Visiting Malaysia Then and Now P.4.

 

42 Charles Hirschman, "The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya: Political Economy and Racial Ideology." Sociological Forum I, no. 2 (Spring 1986),330.

43 Andaya, Malaysia, 160-186.

44 Hirschman, Making of Race, 342-348.

45 Frank Swettenham, Malay Sketches (Singapore: G. Brash, 1984, [1895]). 46 Anthony Milner The Invention of Politics in Colonial Malaya. Contesting Nationalism and the Expansion of the Public Sphere. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.), 10-30.

47 Maier, Authority, 33-72.

48 Ibid., 177-198.

49 Richard Winstedt, Britain and Malaya. 1786 -1941 (London: Longman's, 1944), 15.

50 Ibid., 63.

51 Ibid., 62-64.

52 Ibid., 47-49.

53 Ibid., 46.

54 Ibid., 29-31.

55 Swettenham, Sketches, 246-247.

56 Uiam R. Roff The Origins of Malay Nationalism. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 91-125.

57 The Tamil people are originally from southern India; they have their own language and are found in many areas of the former British Empire. They were an important factor in the assimilation of Indian culture into Southeast Asia.

58 Purcell, Chinese in Malaya, 97-101.

59 Dennis Holman, Noone of the Ulu. (London: Heinemann Ltd., 1958).52-80. 31

60 Philip Loh Fook Seng, Seeds of Separatism: Educational Policy in Malaya, 1874-1940 (Kuala LumpurlNew York: Oxford University Press, 1975) 51-52.

61 Harper, Forest Politics, 11.

62 Loh, Seeds ofSeperatism, 11-19.

63 Ibid., 1-10.

64 Ibid., 11-33.

65 Ibid., 11-33.

66 Winstedt, Malaya, 65-68. 67 Loh, Separatism, 50-70.

6S Ibid., 11-33.

66 Winstedt, Malaya, 65-68.

67 Loh, Separatism, 50-70.

68 Ibid., 50-86.

69 Ibid., 34-49.

70 Ibid., 92-103.

71 Winstedt, Malaya, 65-68.

For updates click homepage here