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