Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Forum.
http://www.jstor.org
* A revised version of a
paper presented at the MalaysiaSociety Colloquium on "Malaysian
Social and Economic History" at the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia,
June 8-10, 1985. I am grateful to Milton Esman, William Lambert, Victor Nee, Norman
Parmer,FrankYoung, and especially to John Butcher for critical comments on an earlier
draft of this paper. I also thank Adriene Dawkins for help in tracking down key sources.
? 1986 by The Eastern Sociological Society. All rights reserved.
0884-8971/86/0102-0330$1.50
America. Nor are modern socialist societies free of the strains of the
"national question" (Connor, 1984). Given this seemingly universal pat-
tern, the thesis of ethnicity as a primordial force-waiting just beneath
the surface of social relations-has a strong appeal in popular thinking
as well as in social science theory.
Yet at best, the hypothesis of ethnicity as a universal primordial
bond or extended kinship feeling among a people can not be more than
a partial explanation for the state of ethnic relations across societies.
The problem is that there is tremendous variation in the patterns of
ethnic antagonism, segregation, intermarriage, and even of ethnic iden-
tity across societies. This variation is even evident for a single ethnic-
origin population, e.g., the differential status and assimilation of Afro-
Americans in South and North America (Harris, 1964; van den Berghe,
1976), and the wide variety in the cultural and socioeconomic adaption
of Chinese populations in the new nations of Southeast Asia (Skinner,
1960; Somers-Heidhues, 1974). A constant-the primordial bond of eth-
nicity-can not serve to explain a variable.
An alternative approach to the ethnic question is to begin with
sociological theories of stratification, conflict, and social change. The
dynamics of class formation and conflict, imperialism, and long distance
labor migration are often linked with ethnic and racial boundaries (Bon-
acich, 1980; Hechter, 1975; Lieberson, 1961). When these processes are
examined, especially within an historical perspective, it is often possible
to discover how ethnic divisions are socially created, institutionalized,
and modified (Bonacich and Modell, 1980; Lieberson, 1980; van den
Berghe, 1967). From this perspective, I begin my study of the social
bases of the origins of ethnicity in Malaysia. In this article-a prelimi-
nary version of a larger work-I propose and evaluate the hypothesis
that the twentieth century structure of "race-relations" of Peninsular
Malaysia is largely a product of social forces engendered by the expan-
sion of British colonialism of the late nineteenth century.
Almost every writer who addresses the "race problem" or the "plural
society" of Peninsular Malaysia1 suggests that roots of contemporary eth-
nic divisions and antagonisms were formed during the colonial era. Be-
yond the point that the past has an important influence upon the pres-
ent there is, however, little agreement on what it was about the colonial
era that contributed to the troubled relations between Malays, Chinese
'
Although Peninsular Malaysiais the presently appropriate name for the area under study,
historical references can become confusing. Malaya, Colonial Malaya, British Malaya are
used interchangeably as historical references to the area, even though political boundaries
varied considerably over time. At present, Peninsular Malaysiaconsists of the eleven states
of Malaysiaon the mainland of Southeast Asia. The other states of contemporary Malaysia
are Sabah and Sarawakon the island of Borneo, more than five hundred miles across the
South China Sea from the peninsula.
331
HISTORICAL SETTING
2
In spite of the general policy of noninterference in the Malay states during this period,
this does not mean that British actions were without significant consequences. As Emerson
observes "the conflicts within the Malay courts were utilized by the Europeans for their
own purposes, with the result that the naturaldevelopment of the Malaypolity was checked
and perverted. The history of Malaya since the 16th century is the confused chronicle of
petty potentates, more or less closely linked with the intrigues of the European invaders"
(Emerson, 1964:15).
333
Source: Bunge, Frederica M., ed. Malaysia. A Country Study. Area Handbook Series.
Foreign Area Studies, The American University. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1984:xxii,34.
334
335
1982:Ch. 2). Barbara Andaya (1979:273) notes that Bugis rulers in Se-
langor were aware of their parvenu status in the Malay world and sought
to increase their standing by marriages into prestigious families and by
the adoption of royal symbols which had meaning in Malay society.
It was into this complex and diverse Southeast Asian world that
early visitors, missionaries, and merchants from India and China also
arrived. From South Asia came religious traditions, forms of state or-
ganization, and a wide variety of cultural expressions (Sandhu, 1969:Ch.
1). Trade links to China were important for traditional Southeast Asian
polities in the Malay world. Malacca's dominant position in the fifteenth
century was recognized, in part, through the acceptance of its offer of
tribute to China (Sandhu, 1961; Wang, 1981:81-96). Although there
already were Chinese populations in Malacca and other towns along the
Malay peninsula, it seems that the opening of British settlements in Pen-
ang in 1786 and in Singapore in 1819 triggered a significant increase of
Chinese migration to the Malay peninsula (Purcell, 1948:Ch. 1-3).
The record indicates that early contacts between Chinese, Indians,
and Malays may not have been entirely harmonious and free of mutual
suspicion, but it does not seem that racial divisions (in the sense of
impenetrable barriers) were present. One measure of the relative open-
ness of ethnic relations is the evidence of intermarriage. The Baba or
Straits Chinese communities of Penang and Malacca retained their Chinese
identity, but they adopted many aspects of Malay culture (Clammer,
1980; Gosling, 1964; Tan, 1983).3 On the nearby island of Java in the
early years of the seventeenth century, prior to Dutch control, "Resi-
dent Chinese were free to adopt the Indonesian cultural attributes or
marry into the local indigenous society and become 'Indonesian'" (Ke-
masang, 1982:61).
The assimilation of many Indian Muslims with Malays seems to
have progressed even further. The Jawi Peranakan (identified as Jawi
Pekans in the nineteenth century censuses of the Straits Settlements)
community is a product of Indian-Malay intermarriages in the eigh-
teenth and nineteenth centuries. Often speaking Malay as their mother
tongue, Jawi Peranakans were employed by the British as clerks and
interpreters (Roff, 1967:48-49). An early British administrator in the
Malay states, describing his experiences in his journal, observes "a dark
girl of about eighteen, certainly not a pure Malay" (Sadka, 1954:97).
Even at present, there are fairly loose boundaries between Indian Mus-
lims and Malays (Nagata, 1974) and few barriers to intermarriage.
3 Clammer (1983:157) questions Purcell's statement (1951:132) that the Baba Chinese
community is a product of Malay-Chinese intermarriage. Even if there was little Malay-
Chinese intermarriage,the Baba Chinese community is clearly a long resident population
with a high degree of acculturation to the Malay world.
338
Not only did science give racial theory the aura of legitimacy in
the late nineteenth century, but such beliefs also fitted well with the
larger body of social Darwinist thought in the wake of the rapid tech-
nological and economic advances of European societies. Conquest and
dominance of the world by European peoples could be given a moral
purpose-it was natural, inevitable, ordered by differential endowments
granted by a Creator, and beneficial to the progress of all mankind. It
was this shift in European thinking about racial differences that accom-
panied the last burst of imperialist enthusiasm of the nineteenth century
and rationalized colonial empires until racist ideology was finally ex-
posed by its logical extension in the gas chambers of the Third Reich.
4 In another
paper, I test this hypothesis with an examination of changes in the ethnic
classification used in the censuses of colonial Malaya (Hirschman, 1985).
341
nial land policies have made the Malay peasantry restless and hostile
(1967:384-386).
In the years after 1874, the Malays were literally and figuratively
disarmed.5 Malay dependence (especially of the elite class) was bought
by pensions and recognition as the nominal rulers of the country. In
the early twentieth century a glowing account of imperial progress re-
ports that earlier European commentators' references to Malay laziness
and treachery were, in light of recent history, shown to be unjust-
indeed the Malays were "nature's gentlemen" (Wright and Reid,
1912:313-315). This vision of Malays as happy underlings is also re-
flected in Swettenham's comment that: "you will wish for no better ser-
vant, no more pleasant or cheery companion" (1955:139).
Malay Capacities. The evidence on changes in European con-
ceptions of Malay inherent potential is mixed. There are several ex-
amples of quite racist judgments prior to the late nineteenth century
(noted below), but other writings raise doubts as to whether this was
the dominant ideology among Europeans at the time. After the turn of
the century, there are again contradictory expressions, but there seem
to be many signs that most Europeans doubted that Malays were as able
as other "races."
The earlier critical expressions of Malay capacities can be found
in some of the major "scholarly" writings of the early and mid-nine-
teenth century. John Crawfurd, a colonial administrator who worked
with Raffles in Java and was one of the early governors of Singapore,
was one of the most prolific of scholarly writers on Southeast Asia in
the early to mid-nineteenth century. His two-volume History of the In-
dian Archipelago (published in 1820) gives an ethnographic account
of the region. On one hand he defends the "natives" against charges of
indolence: "The islanders are found to be industrious like other peoples
. . .they have no constitutional listlessness nor apathy, and whenever
there exists a reasonable prospect of advantage, they are found to labour
with vigour and perseverance" (pp. 42-43). However, in other re-
spects, Crawfurd finds Southeast Asians wanting: "With respect to their
intellectual faculties, the Indian islanders may be pronounced slow of
comprehension, but of sound, though narrow judgment ... it must be
confessed that an Indian islander of the best capacity is unequal, in most
respects, to an individual not above mediocrity in a civilized commu-
nity" (pp. 45-46).
Although A. R. Wallace, the great nineteenth century naturalist and
contributor to evolutionary theory, would later disavow any biological
Swettenham (1955:135) reports, "In 1874 every Malayhad as many weapons as he could
carry . . . two daggers in his belt, two spears in his hand, a gun over his shoulder, and
a long sword under his arm."
343
347
"Race" was constructed in colonial Malaya, not only with the ideo-
logical baggage brought by Europeans but also by the political and eco-
nomic framework sponsored by imperialism. This is not to say that the
initial differences between Malays, Chinese, and Indians were unimpor-
tant or that ethnic frictions would have been absent if European colo-
nialism had not touched Southeast Asia. Rather the question is whether
the structure of constraints and opportunities shaped by colonial rule
widened the initial differences even further, and then created an ide-
ology to explain ethnic inequality as an inevitable reflection of inherent
"racial" differences. In this section, I will only explore several of the
potential topics that could be considered, namely: the lack of Malay
participation in wage labor, the lack of Malay entrepreneurship, and the
question of Malay-Chinese antagonism. The hypothesis is that these fea-
tures were, in part, byproducts of the institutional framework of the
colonial period, and not simply inevitable outcomes of differences in
cultural predispositions.
349
Malay Entrepreneurship
One of the first casualties of European intervention in Southeast
Asiawas the local trading class (Hussein Alatas, 1977:Ch. 12). The Dutch,
through their control of the sea, eliminated the indigenous trading class
in order to achieve a monopoly over trade. This was achieved by the
seventeenth century. Chinese merchants, who served to maintain the
trade with China-vital for Southeast Asia throughout this period-were
able to continue in their positions.
The British fostered an open-system of trade in their freemarket
ports of Penang and Singapore. This allowed a fair degree of smaller-
scale trade in Malay hands, but nothing similar to the pre-European era.
In the pre-colonial Malay world, trade and state power were usually in
the same hands. Control over trade, or the tax on trade, was the major
source of wealth for Malay chiefs and sultans. Given the looseness of
rules of royal succession in Malaycourts, wealth might provide a pretext
or a means to secure political power (Milner, 1982:Ch.2). It is no sur-
prise that the Malayaristocracyclosely guarded access to trade and were
likely to confiscate the property of anyone who might be considered a
threat.
With the end of the traditional Malay polity in the late nineteenth
century, the Malay aristocracy shifted from a trading and warrior class
to a dependent rentier class. There was a small segment of independent
Malay entrepreneurs who remained active in local and long distance
trade (Gullick, 1985), but the political and economic transformation in
the late nineteenth century narrowed their scope of social mobility. To
get a firm footing in the growing capitalist economy in the late nine-
teenth century required capital, control over land, and labor. Such re-
sources were generally in the hands of a few European and Chinese
capitalists who were aided by the colonial government. As the export
economy began to boom and capital costs for production rose, access
to participation in the higher levels of the economy became even more
remote from the world of most Malays.
Why did not urban Malays take to commerce? In his review of
Singapore society in the mid-nineteenth century, Cameron (1965:135)
notes the varied occupations of Malays:they worked as sailors, grooms,
coachmen, servants, and they hawked poultry, fish, and other products.
Cameron expresses surprise that none of the Malays in trade rise from
hawkers to merchants. This is not due to lack of education, he says, as
most Malays are able to read and write. In a significant comment, Cam-
eron notes that Malays rarely hire labor (pp.163-164). I think this pro-
vides a clue to the problem of Malay entrepreneurial success. For any
351
business to rise above the minimal level, there must be a source of avail-
able labor. Moreover, given the very competitive nature of urban com-
merce, an employer must be able to find cheap labor. Chinese mer-
chants had no problem as there was a ready supply of recent immigrants
plus the already sizeable population of urban laborers. With only a small
urban Malay population, Malay entrepreneurs would necessarily have to
seek workers from the rural peasantry. Here the aspiring Malay mer-
chant encountered the familiar problem-the lack of cheap Malay labor.
To offer a wage sufficient to draw labor from the rural sector, the po-
tential Malay employer would have found it difficult to be cost-com-
petitive in the urban economy. Newbold, describing conditions in the
1830s, reports the wages of Malay laborers to be significantly below
those of Chinese workers (1839, vol. 1:14-15). Although employers may
have believed that lower wages were a product of relative productivity,
the lower compensation to Malay labor may have reinforced the diffi-
culties of recruiting Malay labor.
Another structural problem that probably confronted an aspiring
Malay entrepreneur was the control over various spheres of the urban
economy by Chinese kinship (or clan) networks. Almost every business
must depend upon the cooperation of other businesses for sources of
supply, credit, transport, and market access. Without a strong base of
kinship networks to provide these supporting services, entry into the
entrepreneurial world was probably quite precarious. Neither the colo-
nial government nor the Malay aristocracy were motivated to intervene.
As the colonial administration developed in the twentieth century, the
few educated Malays could find alternative employment in the junior
ranks of the civil service or in the teaching profession. These positions
offered low pay, but did give job security and high status in the highly
status-oriented colonial society.
Malay-Chinese Antagonism
Hostility between Chinese immigrants and Malays certainly pre-
dates British colonial intervention. Begbie reports the case of Malay
slaughter of Chinese workers in Linggi in 1830 (1967:408) and similar
incidents occurred later (Cheah, 1981). However, these events do not
mean there was universal distrust or hostility between Malays and Chinese.
Recall the earlier description of an effective working relationship be-
tween the Johor state and Chinese entrepreneurs in the late nineteenth
century. For the present study, the important question is whether colo-
nial rule narrowed or increased the social and cultural distance between
Malays and other ethnic communities as the growing tide of immigrants
arrived in the Malay states in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. The historical record is fairly clear that the colonial admin-
352
colonial practice towards Chinese: "In race and sympathy they might be
Chinese; politically they regard themselves as Malayans . . . [but] the
Malayan Government. . . gave no encouragement at all to the Malayan-
born Chinese to regard themselves as citizens of Malaya" (Purcell,
1965:156).
Given the hostility toward Chinese expressed by many colonial
officials and the lack of physical and social integration, it is not sur-
prising that most Malays formed the opinion that Chinese were only
transients in Malaya with no real attachments to the country.
355
with higher education and mixing in the right circles.6 These ideas prob-
ably reinforced the latent feelings of many Chinese about the potential
of the Malaypopulation. Given the close links between the colonial sys-
tem and the recognition of the traditional Malay aristocracy as the nom-
inal rulers of the country, British colonialism was often seen as a prop
for a "backward"and feudal Malay society.
CONCLUSIONS
6
The skeptical reader will undoubtedly like to see more evidence to support this asser-
tion. I assume that if most Europeans held racial stereotypes, their ideology was com-
municated in European dominated institutions such as English language schools. This ar-
gument parallels the role of elite schools and universities in the creation and maintenance
of a caste ideology in Western societies (Baltzell, 1964). At this point, I can not yet offer
the detailed historical evidence that is necessary to confirm my interpretation.
356
three races, the Malays (including Javanese), the Chinese, and the Tam-
ils (who are generally known as Klings). By nature the Malay is an idler,
the Chinamanis a thief, and the Kling is a drunkard,yet each in his own
class of work is both cheap and efficient, when properly supervised"
(Warnford-Lock,1907:31-32).
This ideology, spread through acculturation to the English speak-
ing world and by the social organization of colonial society, permeated
deeply into the consciousness of most Asians. Even if Asians rejected
the colonial assumptions of white superiority and the stereotypes of their
own ethnic community, they tended to accept the unfounded gener-
alizations of innate racial differences about other communities. Once
established, ideas have a life of their own. Moreover, racial ideologies
tended to legitimate actions by Malay and nonMalay leaders in both
colonial and postcolonial society. More than rubber and tin, the legacy
of colonialism was racial ideology.
REFERENCES
Abraham, Collin E. R. Banton, Michael
1977 Race Relations in West Malaysiawith 1983 Racial and Ethnic Competition.
Special Reference to Modern Polit- Cambridge: Cambridge University
ical Economic Development. Un- Press.
published Ph.D. thesis, Oxford Uni- Begbie, P. J.
versity. 1967 The Malayan Peninsula. (1834*)
1983 "Racial and ethnic manipulation in Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
colonial Malaya."Ethnic and Racial Press.
Studies 6 (January):18-32. Blythe, W. L.
Allen, J. de V. 1947 "Historical sketch of Chinese labour
1964 "Two Imperialists: A study of Sir in Malaya."Journal of the Malayan
Frank Swettenham and Sir Hugh Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
Clifford." Journal of the Malayan 20:64-114.
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Bonacich, Edna
37(1):41-73. 1973 "A theory of middleman minori-
Andaya, Barbara Watson. ties." American Sociological Review
1979 Perak, the Abode of Grace: A Study 38:503-594.
of an EighteenthCentury MalayState. 1980 "Class approaches to ethnicity and
Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University race." Insurgent Sociologist
Press. 10(Fall):9-23.
Bonacich, Edna and John Modell
Andaya, Barbara Watson and Leonard
Y. Andaya 1980 The Economic Basis of Ethnic Soli-
1982 A History of Malaysia.London: Mac- darity: Small Business with Japanese
American Community. Berkeley:
millan Press.
University of California Press.
Andaya, Leonard Y. Boxer, C. R.
1975 The Kingdom ofJohor, 1641-1728. 1965 The Dutch Seabourne Empire. Lon-
Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University don: Hutchinson and Co.
Press. Burns, P. L., ed.
Baltzell, E. Digby 1976 The Journals of J. W. W. Birch: First
1964 The Protestant Establishment: Aris- British Resident to Perak 1874-
tocracy and Caste in America. New 1875. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Uni-
York: Vintage Books. versity Press.
357
358
Journalof the MalayanBranch of the nos, and Javanese From the 16th to
Royal Asiatic Society 27(May):123. the 20th Century and its Function
1985 "The entrepreneur in late nine- in the Ideology of Colonial Capital-
teenth century Malay peasant soci- ism. London: Frank Cass.
ety." Journal of the MalayanBranch Jackson, James
of the Royal Asiatic Society 1964 "Population changes in Selangor
58(1):59-70. state, 1850-1891." Journal of Trop-
Hall, D. G. E. ical Geography 19(December):42-
1981 A History of South-EastAsia, 4th ed. 57.
New York: St. Martins Press. 1968 Plantersand Speculators,Chinese and
Harris, Marvin European Agricultural Enterprise in
1964 Patterns of Race in the Americas. Malaya 1786-1921. Singapore: Uni-
New York: Walker. versity of Malaya Press.
1968 "Race."In David L. Sills (ed.) Inter- Jackson, R. N.
national Encyclopedia of the Social 1961 Immigrant Labour and the Devel-
Sciences, Vol. 13:263-268. New opment of Malaya: 1786-1920. Ku-
York: The Macmillan Company and ala Lumpur:Government Press.
the Free Press. Jones, Greta
Harrison, Brian, translator 1980 Social Darwinism and English
1954 "Malaccain the eighteenth century: Thought: The Interaction Between
Two Dutch governors' reports." Biological and Social Theory. Sus-
Journalof the MalayanBranch of the sex: The Harvester Press.
Royal Asiatic Society 37(1):24-34. Kemasang, A. R. T.
Hechter, Michael. 1982 "The 1740 massacre of Chinese in
1975 Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Java: Curtain raiser for the Dutch
Fringe in British National Develop- plantation econony." Bulletin of
ment. Berkeley: University of Cali- Concerned Asian Scholars 14 (Jan-
fornia Press. uary-March):61-71.
Heisler, Martin, O., ed. Kennedy, Raymond
1977 Ethnic Conflict in the World Today. 1945 "The colonial crisis and the future."
The Annals 443 (September): 1- In Ralph Linton (ed.), The Science
160. of Man in the World Crisis. New
Hirschman, Charles York: Columbia University Press.
1984 "Ethnic diversity and social change Khoo, Kay Kim
in Southeast Asia:Some preliminary 1966 "The origins of British administra-
thoughts." In Ronald Morse (ed.), tion in Malaya."Journal of the Ma-
Southeast Asian Studies: Proceed- layan Branch of the Royal Asiatic
ings of a Conference at the Wilson Society 39(1):52-91.
Center, March 26, 1984:106-122. 1972 The Western Malay States 1850-
Washington, DC: University Press of 1873. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Uni-
America. versity Press.
1985 "The meaning and measurement of 1981 "Sino-Malayrelations in Peninsular
ethnicity in Malaysia:An analysis of Malaysia before 1942." Journal of
census classifications." Unpublished Southeast Asia Studies 12(March):
manuscript, Department of Sociol- 93-107.
ogy, Cornell University. Kratoska, Paul. H.
Horowitz, Donald 1982 "Rice cultivation and the ethnic di-
1985 Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: vision of labor in British Malaya."
University of California Press. Comparative Studies in Society and
Hussein Alatas, Syed History 24(April):280-314.
1977 The Myth of the LazyNative:A Study Kratoska, Paul H., ed.
of the Image of the Malays, Filipi- 1983 Honorable Intentions: Talks on the
359
360
* For
reprinted publications, the date in parenthesis is the original publication date.
361