BRITISH INTERVENTION IN

THE MALAY STATES

 the policy of non-intervention
 reasons for the change to a policy of
intervention
 case study : British intervention in Perak
1874
 the Pangkor Engagement
Policy of Non-Intervention
 EIC was a trading company; only wanted
to make great profits through peaceful
trading
◆ Did not want to interfere in local politics which
might embroil them in war and unnecessary
expenditure
 EIC busy developing its possessions in
India
 Abolition of trade monopoly in 1834
Policy of Intervention

 Increase in demand for tin & other raw

materials
 Need for markets to buy British goods
 Need for new fields of investment
 Anarchy in the Malay states
 Change in British policy of non-intervention
 Opening of the Suez Canal & increased
European interest in the East
 Fear of European rivals
Increase in demand for tin & other
raw materials
 Industrial Revolution
 Development of the tin-canning industry
 Malay states were very rich in tin
 To ensure supply of tin, Britain need to
extend their control over the Malay states
Need for new markets to buy
British goods
 Industrial Revolution and large-scale
production
 New territories would become new markets
for British goods
Need for new fields of investment
 Lost of EIC monopoly of the China trade
 Straits merchant lost much there & looked
elsewhere to invest
 Malay states ideal because of agricultural &
mineral wealth potential
 Wanted British govt intervention in these
states to bring about law & order so that
they can invest safely in the tin mines &
plantations
Anarchy in the Malay States
 Causes
◆ 1. Succession disputes
 rival claimants to the throne
◆ 2. Wars between secret societies
 fighting for control of tin mines
◆ 3. Piracy off the coast affected trade
 Investors in the tin-mining states appealed to
British govt for protection
Change in British Policy of Non-
intervention
 1. Value of British investment in the Malay
states
 Britishinterest in Malay states needed
protection to prosper
 Estimated that trade in Malaya about £3 million
a year and it was largely British capital that
finance this trade
 Thus the British government was prepared to
consider a new policy
Change in British Policy of Non-
intervention

 2. Change in British attitude

 Lord Kimberley appointed Secretary of State for
the Colonies in 1870
 Belonged to a new breed of British politicians

 Believed Britain had a responsibility to spread

the benefits of its rule worldwide
 1873 : Sir Andrew Clarke appointed as Governor
of the Straits Settlements
Change in British Policy of Non-
intervention
“whether any steps can be taken
to promote the restoration of
peace and order to secure
protection to trade and
commerce”

“it would be advisable to appoint

a British officer to reside in any
of the states”
Change in British Policy of Non-
intervention

 3. Change of government in
Britain in 1873
 Conservative Party ;
Benjamin Disraeli
 favoured imperialism to
boost British prestige
 “Forward Policy” - extend
British control over more
colonies overseas
Suez Canal & European Interest in
the East
Suez Canal & European Interest in
the East
 Trade increased between East & West increased
with the opening of the Suez Canal
 Trade passed through friendly or occupied areas
except Malaya; route could be threatened
 Britain-Gibraltar-Malta-Aden-India-Burma-Straits
of Malacca-Hong Kong-China
 Straits of Malacca became more important
 Strong possibility and growing fear that other
European powers would want to make Malaya
their colony
Fear of European rivals
 France
 spreading control in Indo-china
 Holland
 expanding into Indonesia
 Spain
 established in the Philippines
Fear of European rivals
 Russia
 looking for new colonies
 Germany
 after reunification in 1871, desperately looking
for colonies in the East
 Rumours
 Germany negotiating bases in P Langkawi and
northern Malay
 many German business companies in S’pore
Take a break
Relax, lah!
CASE STUDY :
British Intervention in Perak 1874
 Discovery of tin in Larut
 The First Larut War 1861

 The Second Larut War 1865

 The Third Larut War 1872

 The Perak Succession Dispute

 The Fourth Larut War 1873

 Raja Abdullah’s Letter to the Governor

 Perak, known as the "Silver State", (perak means silver),
used to be one of the richest states in Malaysia.
 The state capital is Ipoh,
Ipoh chiefly an industrial centre which
became known as "The City of Millionaires" when many
miners made their fortunes in the nearby tin mines around
a hundred years ago.
 The city has a predominantly Chinese population, and is
the third largest urban area in the country.
 Perak was one of Malaysia’s wealthiest states until the
world-wide recession in the late Eighties took its toll on the
state.
 The collapse of the world's tin industry (Perak’s main
source of revenue) led to tin prices falling sharply and
mines had be to closed, forcing Perak to reconsider its
future socio-economic strategies.
 Since then, the Perak State Government has taken a firm
and brave decision to diversify the economy’s base away
from basic industries towards more value added, resource
linked manufacturing. TOUR
PERAK in the 1860s

 many internal troubles

 succession quarrels in the Perak royal
house
 wars among Chinese tin miners in Larut

 disruption by piracy
Larut
 Malaysia's oldest and
smallest hill resort is
Maxwell Hill or Bukit
Larut, approximately 9 km
from Taiping in Perak. It is
approximately 1,035 m
above sea level and is
blessed with a cool
temperature and beautiful
natural surroundings.
Visitors have often
remarked upon its striking
resemblance to summers
in Switzerland.
Discovery of Tin in Larut

 1848 : Long Jaafar discovered rich deposits of tin in

Larut
 He invited Chinese miners from Penang to work the
mines in Larut
 Tin mining very successful - Sultan made Long Jaafar
the Chief of Larut
 Succeeded by his son Ngah Ibrahim in 1857
Secret Societies in Larut

 Hai Sun Secret Society

◆ mostly Hakkas
◆ occupied an area in Taiping
 Ghee Hin Secret Society
◆ mostly Cantonese
◆ finding the best mines in Taiping occupied, they moved to
Kamunting
Secret Societies in Larut

 Initially contented with their own mining operations, they

were soon overcome with greed and jealousy
 Fought over mining claims and control of water courses
so necessary for tin mining
The First Larut War 1861

 First open clash in July 1861 over the control of a water

course
 The First Larut War ended with Ngah Ibrahim becoming
the richest and most powerful chief in Perak
The Second Larut War 1865

 Both sides were unhappy and required a small incident to spark off
another clash
 this time, it was over a gambling quarrel
 involved other Chinese and Malay secret societies
 Both sides forced to come to terms only because they were
exhausted
 a temporary period of calm followed
The Third Larut War 1872

 The third war was the result of a scandal between the Ghee Hin
leader and the wife of a relative of the Hai San leader
 It was at this time that Raja Abdullah took the side of the Ghee
Hins
 Raja Abdullah was a claimant to the throne of Perak and an enemy
of Ngah Ibrahim
 The war between Chinese miners was now a civil war involving
Malay chiefs of Perak
The Perak Succession Dispute

 From 1871, there was dispute over who the Sultan should be
 3 candidates : Raja Yusof, Raja Ismail & Raja Abdullah
 Each had his own supporters who would not accept either of the
other candidates
 When Raja Ismail succeeded in making himself Sultan, Raja
Abdullah refused to accept this
 Sided with the Ghee Hins as we have seen to gain their support
The Fourth Larut War 1873

 Counterattack by Ghee Hin

 Situation in Perak became chaotic
 Malay chiefs embroiled in the war were alarmed at the disorder
created by the secret societies
 Straits merchants complaints to Sir Harry Ord fell on deaf ears;
policy of non-intervention
 Sir Andrew Clarke,
Clarke new Governor of the Straits Settlements soon
launched a policy of intervention
Raja Abdullah’s Letter to the
Governor

 30 Dec 1873 - Raja Abdullah wrote a letter to Sir

Andrew Clarke asking for “a man of sufficient abilities to
…… show us a good system of government”
 William Pickering THE CHINESE PROTECTOR sent to Larut to
persuade the warring Chinese to accept British
arbitration
 Frank Swettenham LATER RESIDENT OF SELANGOR AND PERAK sent to
invite Malay chiefs to a meeting at Pulau Pangkor
THE PANGKOR
ENGAGEMENT

 Terms of the Pangkor Engagement

 Consequences of the Pangkor

Engagement
PANGKOR
The Chinese Engagement

 The Chinese leaders agreed to British arbitration, to

disarm their warboats and to sign a written agreement
 The Chinese Engagement was signed on board the
ship Pluto
Terms of the Pangkor Engagement

 Raja Abdullah
◆ recognized as Sultan of Perak
 Raja Ismail
◆ Title of Sultan Muda; monthly pension of $1,000 and a small
territory assigned to him
 Ngah Ibrahim
◆ Remained Mentri of Larut but not as an independent ruler
◆ Asst Resident to advise him on admin of Larut
Terms of the Pangkor Engagement

 British Resident
◆ Sultan Abdullah was to accept a British Resident who was paid
by the Sultan
◆ His advice must be asked and accepted on all matters of
administration
◆ Exception : those concerning Malay customs, traditions and
religion
◆ The Resident was to be given a place of residence
Terms of the Pangkor Engagement

 Revenue
◆ Malay chiefs lost the right to collect revenue
◆ Resident now in charge of collection and control of all revenues
◆ Malay chiefs no longer allowed to collect taxes
◆ Would be given pensions instead
Consequences of the Pangkor
Engagement

 The Chinese Engagement

◆ Satisfactory division of the tinfields
◆ Leaders of both sides agreed to keep peace
◆ Accept decisions of the govt commission set up to settle
disputes between the two parties
◆ To the Chinese, this was a satisfactory arrangement
◆ Tired of warfare and wanted to settle down to business of
mining tin
Consequences of the Pangkor
Engagement

 The Malay Chiefs

◆ The signing of the Pangkor Engagement was carried out too
quickly for them to realise the full implications of the treaty
◆ They did not realize it meant a loss of power as Sultan
Abdullah must act on the advice of the Resident
◆ Even Abdullah himself was mistaken that he could take advice
only if he wished to
◆ Did not fully understand the terms of the treaty; difficulty of
translation
Consequences of the Pangkor
Engagement
 Article VI (Eng Version)
That the Sultan receive and provide
a suitable residence for a British
Officer to be called Resident,
who shall be accredited to his
Court and whose advice must be
asked and acted upon on all
questions other than those
touching Malay Religion and
Custom.
 Article VI (translated Malay
Version)
That the Sultan receive and provide
a suitable residential house for
one officer….. whose title shall
be British Resident. The Sultan
of Perak shall have to consult
with him on all matters and the
working of Perak State except
that he cannot interfere with
Muslim religious affairs and
Malay Custom
Consequences of the Pangkor
Engagement

 The Malay Chiefs

◆ The treaty created two Sultans of Perak
◆ Ismail refused to accept the title of Sulatan Muda or the
pension

◆ Ngah Ibrahim
 Clarked ignored the fact that Ngah Inbrahim was recognized as the
independent ruler of Larut by Ord.
 Cpt Speedy was now Asst Resident
Consequences of the Pangkor
Engagement

 Sir Andrew Clarke

◆ exceeded his instructions and authority

◆ He claimed this was necessary to maintain peace

and protect British interests
◆ He was not reprimanded
 strongsupport from new government in England
 Secretary of State for Colonies

 Business community of the Straits Settlements

Importance of the Pangkor
Engagement

 The agreement was a historic one which marked the

beginning of the Residential System in Malaya
◆ The Residential System was one of indirect rule
◆ The Sultan remained Head of State, but he must accept the
advice of the British Resident in all matters of administration
and government
◆ Extended to the states of Negri Sembilan, Selangor and
Pahang
BRITISH INTERVENTION IN
THE MALAY STATES
 the policy of non-intervention
 reasons for the change to a policy of
intervention
 case study : British intervention in Perak
1874
 the Pangkor Engagement
Teluk Intan Leaning Tower
The pride of Teluk Intan, 84 km
from Ipoh, is its spectacular
Leaning Tower. Reminiscent of the
leaning Tower of Pisa, this
pagoda-like structure was built in
1885 by a Chinese contractor,
Leong Choon Choong. The
dominating 25.5 metre tower was
once used for water storage.