Kheng 1994

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies
http://journals.cambridge.org/SEA
Additional services for Journal of Southeast Asian

Studies:
Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Feudalism in Pre-Colonial Malaya: The Past as a Colonial

Discourse
Cheah Boon Kheng
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies / Volume 25 / Issue 02 / September 1994, pp 243 - 269
DOI: 10.1017/S0022463400013503, Published online: 07 April 2011
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022463400013503
How to cite this article:

Cheah Boon Kheng (1994). Feudalism in Pre-Colonial Malaya: The Past as a Colonial
Discourse. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 25, pp 243-269 doi:10.1017/
S0022463400013503
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SEA, IP address: 134.176.129.147 on 03 May 2015

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 25, 2 (September 1994): 243-269
® 1994 by National University of Singapore
Feudalism in Pre-Colonial Malaya: The Past as a

Colonial Discourse
CHEAH BOON KHENG
What of the "feudalisms" throughout the world from China to the Greece of the
beautifully greaved Achaeans? For the most part, they bear scarcely any resemblance
to each other. That is because nearly every historian understands the word as
he pleases. - Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft1
Introduction
The term "feudal" has been used by British writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries to refer to the territories of Brunei, Sumatra, Java and the Malay peninsula.
What were the factors which had led to its usage? Was it really an attempt to under-
stand the cultures of these societies, or to prepare the ground for their eventual ap-
propriation? Because Clifford, Maxwell and other British writers were colonial officials,
should the truth value of their analyses on "Malay feudalism" be rejected out of hand
as "colonial"? Should all writings on Malay feudalism be dismissed as "Western" and
thus are not worthy of study?
Colonial analyses of pre-colonial societies, however, have much of value to say, and
this paper proposes to consider some of the orientalist discourse and its context in the
case of pre-colonial Malaya. It consists of three parts. The first part will deal with
several other questions, one of which is whether, in constructing the term "Malay
feudalism", British writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries displayed a Western
ethno-centric bias. Were they also influenced by European theories which cast British
society as "advanced" and "modern" in contrast to Malay society as "backward" and
"traditional"? Did such knowledge have any deep complicity with British institutions
of power, or help to explain the break-up of the Malay world into imperialist spheres
of influence? The second part of the paper discusses the aptness of the term "feudal"
to the pre-colonial Malay states, while the third part looks at the limited acceptance
of the British concept of "Malay feudalism" in the writings of some local writers in
the post-colonial period. Colonial discourse analysis — as pioneered by Edward Said
in his work Orientalism (first published in 1978) — has proven one of the most fruit-
ful and significant areas of research in recent years. Said extended his study to discur-
sive forms, representations and practices regarding the Third World, with reference
I would like to thank John Gullick, John Bastin and an anonymous reader for the Journal of Southeast
Asian Studies for their careful and critical readings of the original draft. In revising my paper I have benefit-
ted greatly from their comments. This article is an expansion of some ideas which were originally raised in
my inaugural lecture, "Feudalisme Melayu: Ciri-ciri dan Pensejarahannya" (Malay Feudalism: Its Features
and Historiography), which was delivered at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang on 10 August 1991.
'Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft (New York: Vintage Books, 1953), pp. 175-76.
243
244 Cheah Boon Kheng
to the colonial past, to nineteenth century forms of knowledge, and to the language
and idioms of colonial discourse. To quote Said:2
For the Orient idioms became frequent, and these idioms took firm hold in Euro-
pean discourse. Beneath the idioms there was a layer of doctrine about the Orient;
this doctrine was fashioned out of the experiences of many Europeans, all of them
converging upon such essential aspects of the Orient as the Oriental character, Oriental
despotism, Oriental sensuality, and the like
The terms "feudal" and "feudalism" are very recent creations. According to one source,
they were clearly unknown to those who had lived under the so-called "feudal
system".3 The discovery of feudalism in France and in England in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries is regarded as one of the most important landmarks in modern
historical scholarship.4 The seventeenth century antiquarian, Sir Henry Spelman,
through his discovery of feudalism in England, is said to have brought about a
"revolution" in English historiography.5 In France, the works of the Renaissance
scholars subsequently paved the way for the later philosophers to improve on the
definition of feudalism. However, according to Marc Bloch, one of Europe's leading
authorities on feudalism, the labelling was still loose and "rather awkward":6
"Feudal" and "feudalism" were originally legal jargon, taken over from the courts
of the eighteenth century by Boulainvilliers, and then by Montesquieu, to become
the rather awkward labels for a type of social structure which was itself rather
ill-defined.
Like medieval European feudalism, Malay feudalism was invented by British his-
torians and other European writers to describe a certain social system or a particular
period in history. Clearly, the term "feudal" was unfamiliar or alien to the Malays
who lived through that period. By the early twentieth century anyone who read the
historical works of British colonial writers like Clifford, Winstedt and Wilkinson could
not help but associate terms like "feudal", "fief, and "vassal", used in their works to
describe conditions in Malaya, with comparable meanings within European history.
These terms later entered the Malayan history books written for schools from the
mid-1950s until the early 1960s. Very few attempts were made at a definition of Malay
feudalism. Many Malaysians today use the terms "feudal" and "feudalism" rather
loosely. In articles, books and in public speeches, their understanding of "feudalism"
seems to be rather restricted, confined to certain features only, such as anything that
pertains to Malay aristocratic titles, or Malay kingship.
2
Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 203-204.
3
See the interesting discussion of how historians have been unable to avoid inventing general abstractions
and terms to cover entire social systems and entire eras of human activity by Arthur Marwick in his book,
The Nature of History (London: MacMillan, 1971), p. 169.
4
See Donald R. Kelly, Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law, and History in
the French Renaissance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970) and J.G.A. Pocock, The Ancient
Constitution and The Feudal Law: English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century (New York:
WW. Norton and Co., 1957).
5
Pocock, The Ancient Constitution, p. 92.
6
Bloch, The Historian's Craft, pp. 169-70. Bloch here discusses the use of nomenclatures, and cites
many examples where general labels and terms were invented by historians to facilitate their understanding
of historical periods. He refers many times to "feudal" and "feudalism" as examples.
Feudalism in Pre-Colonial Malaya 245
"Feudalism" is a controversial term, to which many different meanings have been

given. It came into popular use only in the eighteenth century after the French
Revolution in 1789 when many "feudal" practices were abolished in France. It had been
conceived as a form of society possessing well-marked features found in Western Europe
from the ninth century onwards. The historian Marc Bloch has given what is generally
regarded as the best description of the main features of "feudalism":7
A subject peasantry; widespread use of the service tenement (i.e. the fief) instead
of a salary, which was out of the question; the supremacy of a class of specialized
warriors; ties of obedience and protection which bind man to man and, within the
warrior class, assume the distinctive form called vassalage; fragmentation of authority
- leading inevitably to disorder; and, in the midst of all this, the survival of other
forms of association, family and State, of which the latter, during the second feudal
age was to acquire renewed strength - such then seem to be the fundamental features
of European feudalism.
Analogies with this feudalism have been found by other scholars in ancient Egypt, China
and India, in the Byzantine empire, in the Arab world, in the Turkish empire, in Russia,
and in Japan. In this paper I have accepted the definition of feudalism within a social
and political sense. There are some scholars who attempt to broaden the definition
by merely stressing the economic factors, such as mode of production, land tenure,
or economic exploitation of an agricultural population by a ruling group. Some assert
that in feudalism, landholding is the source of political power, and status is determined
by land tenure.8 Ultimately, of course, each student has to make up his mind as to
which definition he intends to adopt.
English Works on Malay Feudalism

Within British colonial historiography the early discoverers of Malay feudalism
were a group of writers who appeared during the 1775-1830 period. Later writers would
add in details to certain features of Malay feudalism, but the case for feudalism in the
Malay peninsular states was not fully presented until 1895-99 by Hugh Clifford who
wrote extensively on the subject. Based on his official missions and travels, Clifford
presented first-hand observations on Pahang, Kelantan and Trengganu, which were still
independent states. The English writers on Malay feudalism may be divided into three
groups: (a) the early East India Company (EIC) officials like Marsden, Raffles and
John Anderson; (b) the non-government writers like the journalist John Cameron and
the travel-writer, Isabella Bird; and (c) the colonial administrators such as Maxwell,
Clifford, Winstedt and Wilkinson. At the outset, it should be stated that this survey
of colonial historiogoraphy on the Malay states is not comprehensive. I have only
referred to some selected works in which the term appears; one reason is that I have
been able to refer to only a limited number of nineteenth century works on Malaya
in local libraries.
The first group of English writers on Malay feudalism had focused on the origins
and structure of government in the Malay kingdoms of Brunei, Sumatra, Java and
7
Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, vol. 2 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), p. 446.
8
Maurice Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capitalism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963),
p. 33.
the Malay peninsula. Although this paper deals mainly with the states in the Malay
peninsula, these early English historical writings on the other parts of the Malay world
are pertinent in throwing light on the evolution of their ideas of "Malay feudalism".
They took pains to consider aspects such as economy, land tenure, personal liberty,
justice, and government. Feudalism was not the only form of social or political
organization which they had found in the Malay world. Besides "feudalism", both
Marsden and Raffles also discovered "patriarchalism" and "despotism" as well. Raffles'
discovery of "feudalism" and the "feudal system" in Java owed greatly to Dutch of-
ficials, who had already used these terms in their reports. In their writings comparison
was often made with feudal Europe of the "Medieval Ages".
By the mid-eighteenth century in western Europe, the dust of controversy in the
debate on the origins of European feudalism had already settled down. A clearer
understanding of European feudalism had emerged, so that the use of the term
"feudalism" had become commonplace within historical writing. The early British
writers on Malay feudalism must have had prior knowledge of this through their
formal general education.9 No one, however, knows who was the first British colonial
writer to discover Malay feudalism. The earliest reference which I have come across
is an extract of a letter written in 1775 by an English East India Company official,
John Jesse, concerning Brunei. Jesse resorts to a European feudal analogy to describe
the position of the Brunei Sultan, whose authority was said to be great but everywhere
it was severely checked by his chiefs and aristocrats:10
I cannot better convey an Idea of this Form of Government, than to say it bears
a near resemblance to our ancient Feudal System; for, although there is more respect
paid to the Regal Power here, than in any other Malay Country I have been in, (for
this obvious reason, that the Sultan has entirely the power of appointing the great
Officers of State, and of course can always influence the publick Councils) yet,
however, each Pangiran has the entire sway over his particular Dependents, whose
cause they never fail to espouse, even where he may stand in Opposition to the
Sovereign Authority.
T h e next reference t o M a l a y feudalism is found in William M a r s d e n ' s History of

Sumatra, the first edition of which a p p e a r e d in 1783. A n East I n d i a C o m p a n y official
9
In this connection, John Gullick, in a personal communication of 18 July 1993, provides some interest-
ing thoughts:
A point which interests me is how the European writers on Malay society, notably the prolific
Clifford, picked up their conception of what was 'feudal'. None of the pioneers, Maxwell,
Swettenham and Clifford, went beyond the secondary stage, i.e. mid-Victorian English public
schools, in their formal general education. But if they had gone on to university, it would not
have been likely to enlarge their grasp of the subject, since they would in their time have
been confined to classical studies, i.e. cultures which antedated medieval feudalism. At their
schools they would have studied 'English history* as a subsidiary minor subject (see the case
of Maxwell). Only Maxwell went on to professional training as a lawyer, which may account
for his controversial view that ownership of all land vested in the ruler.
Gullick is the well-known author of Indigenous Political Systems of Western Malaya (London: Athlone
Press, 1958) and Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1987).
'"Substance of a letter, to the Court of Directors, from Mr John Jesse, dated 20th July 1775, at Borneo
Proper, in Alexander Dalrymple, ed., Oriental Repertory, 1791-97 [2 vols.], George Bigg, London, vol. II,
1:1-8, cited in D.E. Brown, Brunei: The Structure and History of A Bornean Malay Sultanate (Brunei:
Monograph of the Brunei Museum Journal, 1970), pp. 90, 222.
Feudalism in Pre-Colonial Malaya 1A1
like John Jesse, Marsden's observations were also comparative in nature: both his
"feudal" and "patriarchal" ideas were derived from the European past. However, his
observations were confined largely to the Bencoolen region of Sumatra due to his work
in the secretariat there from 1771 to 1779. He also derived much information about
other parts of Sumatra from European informants and native sources.11 He described
the governments of the old states of Singapura, Melaka, Johor, Minangkabau, Palem-
bang and Aceh as having feudal features:12
The government, like that of all Malayan states, is founded on principles entirely
feudal. The prince is styled raja, maha-raja, iang de pertuan, or sultan; the nobles
have the appellation of orang kaya, or datu, which properly belongs to the chiefs
of tribes, and implies their being at the head of a numerous train of immediate
dependants or vassals, whose service they command. The heir apparent has the title
of raja muda The immediate vassals of the king are called amba raja; and for
the subjects in general the word rayet [sic] has been adopted.
All other governments throughout the island of Sumatra, Marsden observed, were
a mixture of the "feudal" and the "patriarchal". However, in discussing the origins
of both systems in the Rejang area, Marsden had put forward the theory that the
"patriarchal" system had started from the private family. On the other hand, the
"feudal" system had evolved sometimes from the "patriarchal" system and sometimes
under foreign conquest:13
The domestic rule of a private family, beyond a doubt, suggested first the idea of
government in society, and this people having made but small advances in civil society,
theirs continues to retain a strong semblance of its original. It is connected also with
the principle of the feudal system, into which it would probably settle, should it
attain to a greater degree of refinement. All the other governments throughout the
island [Sumatra] are likewise a mixture of the patriarchal and feudal; and it may
be observed, that where a spirit of conquest has reduced the inhabitants under the
subjection of another power, or has added foreign districts to their dominion, there
the feudal maxim prevails; where the natives, from situation or disposition, have
long remained undisturbed by revolutions, there the simplicity of patriarchal rule
obtains; which is not only the first, and natural form of government, of all rude
nations rising from imperceptible beginnings, but is perhaps also the highest state
of perfection at which they can ultimately arrive.
In the same context, Marsden had described the Pangeran (a Javanese title) in
Rejang as "feudal chief of the country". He also commented on the close relationship,
or "fealty" between the dupati, or headmen, and the pangeran, and "of his ana buah
(dependents) and himself. Originally, the Pangeran of Rejang was himself a chief
dependent on the king of Bantam, but later he was given the government of the coun-
try. Thus invested, he laid claim to the absolute authority of the king whom he
represented. Marsden also learned that the interior parts of the kingdom of Palem-
bang were divided into provinces. Each was assigned as a "fief, or government, to one
1
'For a brief biographical note on Marsden, see John Bastin's Introduction in William Marsden, The
History of Sumatra (1st ed. 1783; 2nd ed. 1784; 3rd rev. ed. 1811; reprint of 3rd. ed., Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
University Press, 1966), pp. v-x.
12
Ibid., p. 350; emphasis added.
13
of the royal family or of the nobles, who committed the management to deputies, and
gave themselves little concern about the treatment of their subjects.14
Following the footsteps of Marsden, whose book on Sumatra he used as a model,
Stamford Raffles in his The History of Java, first published in 1817, paid some atten-
tion to the origins of government of the Javanese. Their government was described
as "despotic" and "feudal" like the Sumatrans, but the Javanese were also considered
a "patriarchal people".15
Notwithstanding the despotic nature of their government, and the feudal principles
on which it rests, the Javan must be considered as a patriarchal people, still retain-
ing many of the virtues, and all the simplicity, which distinguish that state of
society.
In his perception of the "feudal system" in Java, Raffles appears to have been strongly
influenced by Dutch officials, among whom was Dirk van Hogendorp, whose reports
he had read after taking over Java's administration as Lt.-Governor from 1812 to 1816.
Van Hogendorp had resided in Java for many years and had been a member of a com-
mission appointed to inquire into the affairs of Java for the Dutch government before
Java was captured by the British in 1812. In his book, published in 1799, Van Hogen-
dorp had given a detailed description of the "feudal principles of the Javan govern-
ment" and their practice of "feudal services" with the aim of bringing about changes
to these local practices. Van Hogendorp argued that only when the "forced deliveries,
the feudal services, in short, the whole system of feudal government" were ended by
the Dutch government could increase of cultivation and trade result from the local
population.16 These were changes which Raffles himself later adopted during his
period of administration. Van Hogendorp and Raffles clearly saw themselves as
"modern" European mercantilists, who had emerged from an archaic "feudal" system;
everything, therefore, had to make way for trade.
What is interesting, however, is that Van Hogendorp's views on the Javanese "feudal
system of government" were quoted at great length by Raffles, giving the impression
that he was in some agreement with them. In presenting Van Hogendorp's views on
the Javanese "feudal" form of government, Raffles comments briefly and then cites
four pages of text from Van Hogendorp's report, of which the following is a relevant
extract:17
After remarking, in perhaps" too broad and unqualified terms, that the structure of
the government is feudal, he [Van Hogendorp] proceeds to state: 'The first prin-
ciples of the feudal system, which form the basis of the whole edifice, are: that
the land is the property of the sovereign; that the inhabitants are his slaves, and
can therefore possess no property, all that they have and all that they can obtain
belonging to the sovereign, who allows them to keep it no longer than he chooses;
and that the will of the prince is the supreme law
Van Hogendorp then goes on to refer to the feudal system under English and French
kings, and states that the same system of government had been allowed to continue
14
Ibid., p. 360.
15
Thomas Stamford Raffles, The History of Java (1st ed. 1817; reprinted Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1978), I, p. 247; emphasis added.
l6
See Raffles' Introduction to his History of Java, pp. xlii-xliii.
17
Ibid., p. 270.
in Java by the Dutch Company. He then elaborates on the feudal nature of the Java-
nese land tenure system, in which the princes allotted land to the chiefs, and the chiefs
in turn subdivided the lands among others of inferior rank, and so on, down to the
poor peasant who cultivated the soil.
When discussing the Javanese practice of "feudal services", including forced deliveries
and forced labour, Raffles again quotes at length from a Dutch official, in this case
F.J. Rothenbuhler. The following extract shows why Rothenbuhler considered these
"oppressive" services to be "feudal":18
But, alas! these are not all the vexations and oppressions which fall to the lot of
the common people, who bear all without murmuring. The feudal service was as
grievous as almost all the other charges united. The origin of those services must
be sought for in the feudal system of the native government, long ago adopted
throughout Java. It was considered that all the land was the property of the prince,
who only made provisional assignments thereof to his "subjects, in remuneration
for military and other services rendered. This was the cause of all the lands being
divided into as many allotments as could be cultivated, called hachas, each of a
size to be cultivated by one man. A certain number of these was assigned to the
different chiefs, according to his rank; the custom of the country fixing not only
the amount of the contributions to be paid from the produce, but the number of
men to be constantly kept in attendance upon him. The lands thus assigned to chiefs
were exempt from service to them, and the inhabitants were only expected to watch
the villages, to make and repair the roads, and to perform other general services
of the state but the Regents, their relations, their Patehs, and the subordinate
chiefs of every description, assume the right of disposing of the services of
the common people as they think proper, and themselves employ many of them in
menial labour of all descriptions
More details concerning these "feudal services" will appear later on in the writings
of William Maxwell, the Assistant Resident of Perak, when he describes Malay land
tenure in the Malay states. In the meantime, it may be pertinent to summarize the fore-
going observations of John Jesse, William Marsden, Stamford Raffles and Raffles'
Dutch authorities regarding the Brunei, Sumatran and Javanese societies: (a) that these
societies were not only "feudal", but also "despotic" and "patriarchal"; (b) that ter-
ritorial chiefs were more powerful than the king; (c) that lands and territories were
granted out in fief to chiefs in return for military and other services, and these in turn
were sub-divided further among others of inferior rank; (d) that "vexatious" demands
for forced deliveries, menial labour and other "feudal services" were exacted from the
chiefs followers; and (e) that fealty and ties of homage were paid all the way down
the hierarchy, between lords and dependents (called anak buah). We shall see that these'
"feudal characteristics" will be repeatedly emphasized by other British observers.
In contrast to Marsden and Raffles, John Crawfurd detected only "Oriental
despotism" in Java and the Celebes. "Feudal" is a word that is not to be found in his
three-volume History of the Indian Archipelago, which appeared in 1820 — three years
18
Ibid., p. 303; emphasis added. This passage has also been reproduced by W.E. Maxwell in his article,
"The Law and Customs of the Malays with reference to the Tenure of Land", in Journal of the Straits
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 12 (June 1884): 75-167. The quotation appears on pp. 112-13.
after Raffles' history of Java.19 If there is any hint that Crawfurd did not subscribe
to the idea of "Malay feudalism", it is in his remarks: "I make no reference to the
shepherd state. Such a form of society could, in fact, never have existed in these
countries, from the very nature of things. "20 In other words, Crawfurd held firmly to
a rigid economic interpretation of "feudal society" as an agrarian-based society,
especially when he described the terrain as jungled, abounding in rivers and narrow
seas and lacking in pasture for rearing cattle and sheep. Characterizing Java's monarch
as "among the most absolute of eastern potentates", Crawfurd added: "There is no
hereditary nobility with privileges to control or limit his authority. He is himself first
minister of religion, so that even religion has but trifling influence in restricting his
authority. m
In 1824 in the context of an internal debate within the EIC on whether Kedah was
a sovereign state, or a tributary of Siam, an EIC official, John Anderson, found the
concept "feudalism" useful to support his faction's case that Kedah was a sovereign
state. He used the word "feudal" and "feudatory" to describe the relationships between
unequal states, and regarded Kedah as a weak state paying homage to Siam, a more
powerful state, by either sending tributes or rendering services, or making some form
of submission. Such a "feudal" relationship, he argued, by no means diminished the
sovereignty of the weaker party. In fact, the whole aim of his book, Political and
Commercial Considerations relative to the Malayan Peninsula, and the British Settle-
ments in the Straits of Malacca was to demonstrate to the EIC the sovereignty of
Kedah. On the definition of "Feudatory states" Anderson quotes from the work of one
whom he described as the "celebrated Vattel":22
The Germanic Nations introduced another custom, that of requiring homage from
a State either vanquished, or too weak to make resistance. Sometimes even a Prince
has Sovereignties in fee, and Sovereigns have voluntarily rendered themselves feudatory
to others. When the homage leaves independence and Sovereign authority in the
Administration of the State, & only means certain duties to the Lord of the Fee,
as some honorary acknowledgement, it does not prevent the State or the Feudatory
Prince being strictly Sovereign. The King of Naples pays homage for his Kingdom
to the Pope, and is nevertheless reckoned among the principal Sovereigns in Europe.
Throughout his work Anderson mentions "feudal obligations", "vassalage" and "pay-
ing homage" in Kedah's relations with either Ava or Siam, as well as Siam's relations
with the Emperor of China.23 Thus, according to this usage, "feudal" relations may
19
John Crawfurd, History of the Indian Archipelago containing An Account of the Manners, Arts,
Languages, Religions, Institutions, and Commerce of Its Inhabitants, 3 vols. (1st ed., 1820; reprinted
London: Frank Cass, 1967). See chapter entitled "Government", vol. Ill, pp. 1-28.
^Ibid., p. 8.
21
Ibid., p. 15.
22
John Anderson, Political and Commercial Considerations relative to the Malayan Peninsula and the
British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (1st ed. 1824; reprinted with an introduction by J.S. Bastin,
Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society [MBRAS], 1965), p. 42. In a communication
to me dated 17 July 1993, Bastin provided the following brief note on Vattel: "'The celebrated Vattel' is a
reference to the Swiss-German jurist and diplomat Emmerich (or Emeric) de Vattel (1714-67). I don't know
which of his works Anderson refers to. He codified the doctrines of Grotius, Puffendorf and Wolf in his
Droits des Gens of 1758, trans. 1834."
23
See Anderson, Political and Commercial Considerations, pp. 30, 45, 52, 84, and 157.
also exist between states and are not necessarily confined to personal "lord-vassal"
relationships within a feudal state. Such a usage was clearly derived from European
history, where it applied to the relationships between superior Icings and minor kings
or princes.24
Again, in the 1820s, "feudalism" was used to explain the break-up of the Malay
world into two spheres of influence under the Anglo-Dutch 1824 Treaty. Since the Malay
kingdoms were "feudal" in character, they could be splintered into smaller political
units. Using the concept in this way in 1839, T.J. Newbold regarded the peninsular
states of Johor, Pahang and Negri Sembilan as all having been at one time "feudatory"
to the Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultan who had come under Dutch influence in 1784. How-
ever, Raffles' recognition of a separate breakaway Johor kingdom under a Riau
prince caused the kingdom's break-up. Without referring to the older Johor-Riau-
Lingga kingdom under the Dutch, Newbold described the British-appointed Sultan of
Johor as "the feudal sovereign" and the pro-British Temenggong in Singapore as his
"vassal".25 Of Pahang, he said: "This state, though nominally feudatory to Johore [did
he mean Johor-Riau-Lingga?], is virtually under a chief termed the Bendahara",26
and again, " . . . it [Pahang] has frequently served as a place of refuge to the ex-
sovereigns of Malacca and Johore, to whom, as before stated, it is nominally feudal,
and not, as supposed by some, to the delegated princes of Rhio".27 The term
"nominally feudal" is clearly meant to lend legitimation to the British occupation of
Singapore and recognition of the breakaway Johor kingdom.
There was also a tendency during this time for British writers in the nineteenth
century to compare the feudal past of England with that of the Malay States. Similar
features were observed in both societies. The journalist John Cameron, writing in
1865, identified the Malay hierarchical system as similar to England's earlier feudal
structure:28
Unlike the nomadic tribes of the aborigines, the Malays of the peninsula have always
been lovers of good order and an established government. In their independent states
they have first a sultan, who is all powerful; under him there are datuhs, or gover-
nors, selected from among the men of rank, and under these again there are
pangulus, or magistrates, all standing very much in their relation to the people as
our own nobility stood in feudal times to the people of England.
J.F.A. McNair, an Army surveyor, wrote in 1878 about the "strong feudal pride" of
the Perak Malays "arising from their principle of tribal associations under chiefs —
24
For such usage, refer to the Portuguese writer Tome Pires who in his book Suma Oriental (1512-15),
wrote: "When this king Xaquem Darxa (Iskandar Shah) was forty-five years old, he wanted to go to China
in person to see the king of China, and he left the kingdom in the hands of the mandarins, saying that he
wanted to go and see the king to whom Java and Siam were obedient And he went where the king
was and talked to him, and made himself his tributary vassal, and as a sign of vassalage he took the seal
of China with Malacca in the centre " Emphasis added. See Tome Pires, Suma Oriental, trans. A.
Cortesao, 2 vols. (London: Hakluyt Society, 1944), II, p. 242.
"See T.J. Newbold, Political and Statistical Account of the Straits Settlements in the Straits of Malacca
(1st ed. 1839; reprinted Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1965), vol. I, p. 235 and vol. II, pp. 154-55,159.
26
lbid., p. 55.
27
Ibid., p. 56.
28
John Cameron, Our Tropical Possessions in Malayan India (first published in 1865; reprinted Kuala
Lumpur; Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 127-28.
a practice common to both Arab and Malay races — with its natural independence
of spirit and love of liberty". He says that this "feudal pride" makes it "at all times
a difficult task to render them tractable under coercion though capable under a patri-
archal sway of readily yielding an implicit and cheerful obedience".29 Clearly display-
ing a Western bias, McNair likened the taxation system of the chiefs to that of
the feudal robber barons of Germany:30
This river system has made it very convenient for the chiefs of the country to obtain
their dues; for no sampan or prau goes up or down the river without being
squeezed by the followers of the chief, whose boats are ready at the campong at
which the lord resides. One is strongly reminded of the robber chieftains, or barons
of the Rhine, in the case of the Perak [River] and its tributaries; though here the
enforced tribute has been exacted in a far milder way.
In 1883 the English lady traveller, Isabella Bird reported that the "independent" Malay
states, not yet under British protection, possessed several "feudal" features such as
fragmented authority, a subject peasantry, forced labour and military service:
Sultans, rajahs, maharajahs, datus, etc., under ordinary circumstances have been
and still are in most of the unprotected States unable to control the chiefs under
them, who have independently levied taxes and blackmail till the harassed cultivators
came scarcely to possess property which might at any time be seized. Forced labour
for a quarter of the labouring year was obligatory on all males, besides military
31
service when called upon
The Malay sovereigns in most cases have come to be little more than the feudal
heads of bodies of insubordinate chiefs, while even the headmen of the villages take
upon themselves to levy taxes and administer a sort of justice.32
After British intervention in the state of Perak in 1874, land became an important
commodity, which needed to be brought under British control for exploitation. Writing
in 1884, Sir William Maxwell, who had served as Assistant Resident of Perak (1877-82),
advocated the need to introduce a British system of land ownership, based on land
titles and land-taxes. He examined what he regarded as the Malay feudal land system
to arrive at a suitable rate of land-rent, which he concluded was one-tenth of the pro-
duce of the land. As for forced labour, or kerah, about which Isabella Bird had com-
mented in her book, Maxwell "described it as a feudal personal service which the free
Malay cultivator had to render to his overlord as one of the conditions of tenancy. In
a passage which has become famous due to being over-quoted, he shows not only the
range of exactions imposed on the Malay peasants by the chiefs, but why the exactions,
though oppressive, were subject to some degree of restraint. This illustrates what can
be called the "moral economy" of the Malay peasantry:33
29
1F.A. McNair, Perak and the Malays (London: 1878; reprinted Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
Press, 1972), p. 202; emphasis added. Major McNair was involved in the British military expedition to
suppress the Malay uprising in Perak in 1875-76.
30
Ibid., p. 158.
''Isabella Bird, The Golden Chersonese (1st ed. 1883; reprinted Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press,
1967), p. 25.
32
"Sir W.E. Maxwell, "Law and Customs", pp. 75-167.
In a Malay state the exaction of personal service from the ra'ayat is limited only
by the powers of the endurance of the latter. The superior authority is obliged from
self-interest to stop short of the point at which oppression will compel the cultivator
to abandon his land and emigrate. But within this limit the cultivator may be re-
quired to give his labour in making roads, bridges, drains and other works of public
utility, to tend elephants, to pole boats, to carry letters and messages, to attend his
chief when travelling, to cultivate his chiefs fields as well as his own and to serve
as a soldier when required. Local custom often regulates the kind of service exacted
from the cultivator in a particular district. Thus in Perak one district used to supply
the Raja with timber for building purposes, while rattans and other materials came
from others; the people of one locality used to furnish the musicians for the Raja's
band, while another had to provide nurses and attendants for his children.
In this and other passages on "Malay feudalism", Maxwell echoes the position taken
by Raffles in his A History of Java, regarding Javanese land tenure and "feudal ser-
vices". In a number of places he cites Raffles' book as well as from Marsden's History
of Sumatra, sometimes quoting very lengthy passages, so that in Maxwell we see a
direct continuity of ideas on "Malay feudalism" from Marsden's time.
Maxwell, however, was sharply critical of "forced labour" and other "rapacious"
exactions of the Malay Rajas and chiefs on their followers which he described as a
"blight" on the Malay peasantry. He heartily applauded Raffles' abolition of these
"feudal services" in Java. Raffles had replaced them by a levy in which the peasant
cultivator paid land-revenue, and he directed that if the Javanese peasant cultivators
were ever required by the rajas to perform certain public duties, their services had to
be paid for.34 What has been controversial is Maxwell's opinion that the ownership
of the land in a Malay state was vested in the Sultan (in this he repeats the views
of Marsden, Raffles and the Dutch authorities with regard to Sumatra and Java).
Maxwell held the view that the Malay ruler thereby had the right to demand of the
peasant cultivator certain obligations or a proportion of his produce, usually a tenth,
on pain of forfeiture of the holding. He cites the levy of the tenths as a common
practice in ancient China, Cambodia, Ceylon and even in Kedah during Siamese rule.
In the Malay States this practice was observed mainly in the Krian district of Perak
and in Melaka. In the latter case the Dutch had imposed the levy as a continuation
of an earlier Malay practice. Critics, however, regard the evidence on the practice of
reciprocal obligations as not conclusive enough.35
Maxwell also contended that another evidence of a feudal practice was the Raja's
absolute proprietary right to the soil. Like medieval European kings, the Malay Sultan's
34
A different practice, however, was imposed in Perak after British rule in 1874. R.O. Winstedt in his
The Malays: A Cultural History (first published 1947 and revised 1950; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1958), p. 56 recalls: "And when the British first went into Perak the difficulty of finding labour for public
works led them to require gratuitous labour for six days every year from all Malay males above 15 and below
50 except Rajas, farmers paying rent to the State or one official of each kind attached to a mosque (Imam,
Khatib, Bilal, Siak). Exemption might be bought at the rate of 25 cents a day. But even before forced
labour was abolished, British influence had led to a general strike by the peasantry against a system they
had formerly accepted."
35
For a critique of Maxwell's theory, see David Wong, Tenure and Land Dealings in the Malay States
(Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1977), pp. 8-20, and Jomo Kwame Sundaram, A Question of Class:
Capital, the State and Uneven Development in Malaya (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1988), pp. 9-11.
attribution of superior ownership in land and his interest in territorial possession was
not mere fiction, as it was frequently backed by military and poltitical authority. How-
ever, David Wong rejects this argument on the ground that the peasant cultivator's
obligations to the ruler or chief were not linked to any bondage through "land". Wong
argues instead for "Malay despotism", in which "the persons of the subject class . . .
were brought under the yoke of the kingly government and their labour and produce
crops exposed to exploitation by the ruling class, while, in so far as their relationships
in respect of land were concerned, their customary 'rights' and 'liberties' to carry on
the acquisition and cultivation of land were presumably left almost intact".36 Wong
ignores fief-holding which has been observed by most colonial writers as an essential
aspect of pre-colonial Malay political and social organization. Under fief-holding, the
chiefs claimed effective control or personal proprietory rights over land in their respect-
ive territories. The absence of any clear evidence linking peasant bondage to land,
however, does not mean it did not exist nor that some reciprocal obligations under
lord-vassal arrangements also did not exist. Although Swettenham differed with
Maxwell over the issue of the levy of the tenths, he shared Maxwell's view that pre-
colonial Malay society was feudal. In a despatch in 1890, he indicated that rights held
by chiefs or the sultan entailed obligations to subordinate groups:37 " . . . a principal
feature of Malay society has always been the feudal system . . . the people look to their
chiefs and especially to the Sultan for assistance whenever they are in difficulty and
they expect to receive it". He had elsewhere spoken of kerah and other labour duties
and obligations owed by the Malay peasants to their chiefs and Sultan.
In 1895 appeared the most detailed description of "feudal" arrangements in the
Malay peninsula. Hugh Clifford's Report on the Expedition to Trengganu and Kelan-
tan is an account of his journey to the two states, not yet under British rule. It gives
interesting details of the "feudal system" which he claimed existed "in the form of
Government of every Malay kingdom in the Peninsula with which I am acquainted,
and it was to be found in full force in Pahang when that state was protected by
the British Government in 1888". His description of the "Malay feudal system" in
Trengganu repeats many of the points mentioned earlier by Marsden and Raffles in
Sumatra and Java, and by Maxwell in regard to the Malay states. However, he exceeded
them in his Western-centric use of feudal terms like "fief, "vassals" and "baronies".
Focusing on Trengganu, Clifford asserted the state possessed European feudal features
such as fragmented authority, military service, forced labour and a subject peasantry:38
In the reigns preceding that of Baginda Umar [1839-1876] a feudal system, as com-
plete in its way as any recorded in the history of the Middle Ages, was in force
in Trengganu. This system, which presents a curious parallel to that of medieval
Europe, is to be traced in the form of Government of every Malay kingdom in the
Peninsula with which I am acquainted, and it was to be found in full force in
Pahang when that State was protected by the British Government in 1888. In
Trengganu it has undergone considerable modification, and now been replaced by
36
Wong, Tenure and Land Dealings, p. 14.
37
Straits Settlements Despatches, 24 Sep. 1890, cited in Gullick, Malay Society, p. 61. 1 am grateful to
John Gullick for drawing my attention to this reference.
38
Hugh Clifford, "Report on an Expedition to Trengganu and Kelantan, 7 August 1895", JMBRAS 34,1
(reprint May 1961), pp. 68-69; emphasis added.
a wholly different form of Government. Under the Malay feudal system the
country is divided into a number of districts, each of which is held in fief from
the Sultan by a Dato' or District Chief. These districts are sub-divided into minor
baronies, each of which is held by a Dato' Muda, or Chief of secondary import-
ance, on a similar tenure from the District Chief. The villages of which these sub-
districts are composed are held in a like manner by the Katua-an or Headmen from
the Dato' Muda. In event of war the Sultan calls upon the District Chiefs to render
the military service which they are bound to afford, and each Chief summons the
Dato' Muda, who call the village Headmen, who bring with them the able-bodied
raayat who dwell in their villages. In the same way the Sultan often levies money
from a district through the agency of the local Chief, who, in common with the
Headmen under him, takes care that the whole burden shall be borne by the raayat.
The latter may be said to have practically no rights, whether of person or property,
under this system. Not only does he pay all the taxes and exactions which the Raja,
the District Chief, or his more immediate Headmen mayexact; not only is he called
upon to labour continuously that others may profit by his toil; not only is he
required to perform any work that may be demanded of him by his superiors
without recompense or reward, but the fruits of his labours, all the property of
which he stands possessed, and the very persons of his women-folk only remain his
so long as he is strong enough to resist the person by whom they are coveted.
According to Clifford, this Malay "feudal system" in Trengganu was broken up by the
autocratic Baginda Umar, who took away the powers of the territorial chiefs and cen-
tralized them in his hands. Despite this centralization, however, a few "feudal" prac-
tices survived, such as the budak raja (the palace knights), the parcelling of districts
to Rajas, relatives of the Sultan, as sources of their income (they were mostly absentee
Chiefs, who would only descend from the capital into the districts to impose taxes and
take whatever they needed), and the retention of the village chiefs (the penghulu) who
could impose the forced labour (kerah) on the peasants.39 Clifford, however, gave
little information about "feudalism" in Kelantan on the grounds he was not well in-
formed about that state.
On 14 December 1897, in a paper presented to the Royal Colonial Institute in
London, Clifford presented a more detailed picture of the "Malay feudal system".40
He argued that "a study of the organization of a State on the east coast of the Penin-
sula reveals to us more completely the whole theory of Malayan government than
any examination of the history of the States of Perak and Selangor can be supposed
to do". Focusing on the state of Pahang, he preceded his examination with a com-
parison between the European and Malay feudal systems. He expressed the view that
"feudalism" was a phase that every human society had to pass through in its evolution
from primitive beginnings. Finally, he asserted that the Malays, "in common with other
more civilised folk, had worked out for themselves unaided a theory of government
on feudal lines which bears a startling resemblance to the European models of a long-
passed epoch".
39
Ibid., pp. 69-73.
'"'See Hugh Clifford, "Life in the Malay Peninsula: As it was and is", in Honourable Intentions: Talks
on the British Empire in Southeast Asia delivered at the Royal Colonial Institute, 1874-1928, (ed.) Paul H.
Kratoska (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 224-56.
According to Said, Orientalism tended to make more rigid the sense of difference
between the European and Asian parts of the world.41 Nowhere is this more evident
than in Clifford's comparison of Malay and European feudalism, in which he judged
the Malay states to have remained static and backward:42
Students of European history may note with interest the slow evolution of existing
systems of government in our various countries from beginnings which, speaking
broadly, are singularly alike. Throughout the Europe of the Middle Ages the feudal
system embodied the principal theory upon which all governments were based, and
the history of the white nations is merely the record of the changes and develop-
ments effected in this system which, after many centuries, have resulted in the
various methods of government which we find extant in the European countries of
today. The feudal system, in some form or another, would appear to be one of the
inevitable phases through which the government of every civilised country must
pass in the process of its evolution from more primitive beginnings to methods of
administration based upon wider, nobler conceptions of the duty of the State to
those whom it rules yet serves; and an examination of the modern history of the
Malayan States of which I am speaking, shows us with great distinctness that the
Malays, in common with other more civilised folk, had worked out for themselves
unaided a theory of government on feudal lines which bears a startling resemblance
to the European models of a long-passed epoch. But here they had halted. To live
in independent Malaya [i.e. in pre-British rule Malay states] is to live in the Europe
of the thirteenth century.
Examining Pahang's "feudal system", Clifford found it had more European feudal
features than in Trengganu. In addition to "fief and "barons", he also identified
"vassals" and "fealty" and emphasized the fragmentation of authority among the
chiefs, their relationship to one another as "lord" and "vassal", the powers of these
"barons" and the services which they extracted from their "vassals". He gives the most
convincing evidence of fief-holding in a Malay state:43
Thus in the Malayan States, as we found them when first we began to set about
the task of moulding their history for ourselves, the Sultan was theoretically the
owner of the whole country and everything that it contained, all others holding
their possessions in fief from him, or from his vassals on his behalf. The country
was divided up into a number of districts, each of which was held in fief from the
Sultan by an Orang Besar, or great Baron. The power which each of these men
held in his own district was practically unlimited. Thus in Pahang a dozen years
ago each of the great chiefs, of whom there were four, had the power of life and
death over all the people residing in his territories. But the unwritten law or custom .
went further than this, for it defined the exact manner in which each of these chiefs
must carry out the executions which he might order
Under the four great chiefs, or barons, there were the chiefs of the Council of
Eight. These men were related to the greater barons in precisely the same manner
as the latter were related to their Sultan — that is to say, that they owed them
fealty, and were bound to follow them in time of war.
Under the eight chiefs, each of whom had his sub-district, the boundaries of
which were clearly defined by his letter of authority, were the chiefs of the Council
41
Said, Orientalism, p. 204.
42
43
Ibid.; emphasis added.
of Sixteen — squires who owned a few clusters of villages, holding them in fief
from one or another of the Council of Eight. Under them again were the Thirty-
Two and the Sixty-Four, who existed more in theory than in reality, for no man in
all the country knew its internal economy with sufficient intimacy to be able to
name more than a few of them, and the little village headmen who claimed to
belong to one Council were probably not sufficiently numerous to make up the
required total of Ninety-Six.
Clifford went on to discuss the relationship of the peasantry to the chiefs, their claims
to land ownership and the chiefs' claims to their labour and military services. What
is interesting is that Clifford held that although the Malay peasant had no rights to
land, yet he could occupy any land he wished so long as it was not challenged. This
was unlike in feudal Europe, where the grant of rights to land by a higher authority
conferred and imposed on the recipient obligations of service. Maxwell, however, had
held that the soil of a Malay state was vested in the Sultan, who had the right to
demand a tenth of the produce of the peasant cultivator who used the land. Clifford
claimed that his observations were based on two years residence in Pahang before
British rule was established:
Under the village headmen, the Ka-tua-an, or elders, as they were usually termed,
were the free Raayat, or villagers. These men held land of their own, upon which
their houses stood. They also had a traditional right to select such forest land from
time to time as they might require for the planting of temporary crops, and most
of them cherished some legendary claims to certain plots of uncultivated land
which were suppposed to have once been occupied by some of their ancestors, and
were perennial sources of dispute and contention. All this land, however, was only
in a sense the property of the owner. No man disputed the right of a villager to
take up jungle and transform it into arable land; no man denied his right to sell
it; no one questioned the right of his children to inherit it when his day was done;
but the owner held no title for it, and if a stronger than he coveted it and elected
to dispossess him he had no redress. He paid no rent for his land; he was under
no obligations as to its cultivation; but, by an unwritten law, he was bound to follow
his headman or his chief to the seat of war in the event of his presence being
required; he was forced to pay a number of taxes, regular or irregular, such as we
Europeans are wont to term "squeezes"; and he was further bound to give his
labour to any of his superiors who might need it free of charge, and to follow his
chief when he went to Court in order to swell the number of the mob of adherents
which the noble's dignity found necessary for its support.
In 1899, in his first book, In Court and Kampong, again, Clifford wrote about the
Malay feudal system, repeating many of the details from his Report and his talk.44
The colonial discourse at this period also revealed a tendency to treat as "feudal"
those Malay states not yet brought under British control, such as Johor, Kelantan and
Kedah. On 12 February, 1894 Harry Lake, an engineer in the service of the Sultan of
Johor, in a talk on Johor's early history described Johor as "feudatory or tributary
to the sovereignty of the Sultan of Malacca".45 Similarly, in 1908, W.A. Graham, in
^See Hugh Clifford, In Court and Kampong (reprinted; Singapore: Graham Brash, 1989), chap. 1, "The
East Coast".
45
See Harry Lake, "Johore", in The Geographical Journal 3 (Jan.-Jun. 1894): 281-302.
his book on Kelantan referred repeatedly to the state's fragmentation into smaller
units whose chiefs he termed "feudatory".46 Later another British writer, Lady Lovat,
described the Regent of Kedah as "a feudatory, half-vassal of the King of Siam".47 In
1925 the British imperial historian L.A. Mills in a background chapter of his book,
British Malaya, focused his attention on Malay piracy in the nineteenth century, prior
to British intervention, and attributed its causes to the "semi-feudal conditions" of the
Malay states:48
So deeply ingrained was piracy in the native character that any sea-coast Malay
would engage in it if the opportunity seemed favourable. The ordinary Malay trader
was merchant and pirate by turns, as opportunity served. In this as in so many
other respects the semi-feudal conditions prevailing in Malaya in the nineteenth
century resembled those of Europe in the Middle Ages.
In the 1930s several full-length histories of Malay states like Pahang and Perak
which had come under British protection were published by colonial writers. These
states were seen as feudal, badly governed and frequently torn by internal conflicts
among the Malay chiefs. As these conflicts produced wars and anarchy, their economies
were ruined, causing great misery and suffering to the people. British intervention
restored law and order. Thus, "Malay feudalism" was a bad system which had to be
replaced by a modern, that is, Western system of administration. The picture of the
British as "advanced" and "modern" in contrast to the Malays as "backward" and
"incapable of government" is clearly evident in Linehan's A History of Pahang, which
was published in 1936. Echoing Clifford's views about Malay feudalism in Pahang,
Linehan added in many more details on the powers of the Pahang chiefs in Lipis, their
claims over the Malay peasantry, and the frequent internal feuds among the chiefs,
adding, "Discontent was rife amongst the feudal Chiefs and headmen of Lipis".49 He
even went one step further. Discussing the forced labour service, kerah, he compared
the fate of Malay peasants with that of serfs in medieval Europe under the feudal
system:51'
... .Throughout many of the States in the Malay Peninsula the system of forced
labour {kerah or corvee), whether in civil or war-like employment, was common
and none suffered from this burden more than the Pahang peasants. During the
internal struggles which preceded [Sultan] Ahmad's accession to power, they were
engaged, now with one set of contestants, now with the other. Their position
corresponded with that of the serfs in the Middle Ages in Europe: they were in-
articulate and had few, if any rights.
Earlier both Winstedt and Wilkinson in a collaborative work had blamed the Malay
feudal system in Perak for much of the anarchy and civil conflict which had occurred
'"WA. Graham, Kelantan: A State in the Malay Peninsula (Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1908),
pp. 41, 43.
47
Lady Lovat, The Life of Sir Frederick Weld: A Pioneer of Empire (London: John Murray, 1914),
p. 302.
**See L.A. Mills, British Malaya, 1824-1837 (first published in JMBRAS in 1925; reprinted Kuala
Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 223; emphasis added.
49
W. Linehan, A History of Pahang (previously published as JMBRAS 14, May 1936; reprinted MBRAS
monograph No. 2, 1973): 108; emphasis added.
50
in the state prior to British intervention in 1874. In A History of Perak (1934), they
surveyed Perak's early transition from Malay to British rule under the 1874-75 ad-
ministration of J.WW. Birch, the first British Resident. He was murdered because of
the Malay chiefs' resistance to his efforts to modernize the state. The meaning of
Winstedt and Wilkinson's narrative becomes clearer if it is read as "J.WW. Birch's
attempts at the abolition of the Malay feudal regime", as the following extracts show:51
The Resident's task was of immense and novel difficulty. To the half-feudal, half-
robber financial system he had seen no counterpart.... (p. 102)
. . . . Blind to the shattering effect of this programme (to take over collection of
taxes) on his feudal audience he went upriver to Kuala Kangsar.... (p. 104)
. . . .With the headmaster (the Governor) behind him, he seems to have anticip-
ated no recalcitrancy in his feudal pupils at the loss of their age-long pocket
money!... (p. 104)
. . . .They wanted His Excellency's (the Governor's) sympathetic intervention to
prevent the Resident from interfering with religion and custom, from acting without
consulting Sultan and chiefs, from depriving them of the feudal dues that were the
only source of their income and from harbouring refugee slaves their property,
(p. 108)
The Resident saw that toll-stations at intervals of every few miles along the
Perak river must limit the output of tin and damage trade. But his proposals for
a state revenue made a clean sweep of feudal dues, he made the chiefs no firm offer
of compensation: in his eyes, they were robbers from the Sultan downwards, (p. 109)
. . . .The Maharaja Lela seated in his open hall of audience declared that he
would submit to no one but the Sultan, and he sat waiting to hear if the Resident
would post those proclamations about taxation which boded the end of feudal
rights and feudal rule; he had ordered his men to tear them down and, if they were
posted again, to run amuck and kill. (p. 114)
He (Hugh Low, the new Resident of Perak) settled the question of the
feudal revenues of the chiefs by making them local headmen and giving them a
substantial percentage of all Government dues collected by them in their districts.
He secured a very useful addition to the revenue by substituting a definite land-tax
for the indefinite right possessed by the State to the forced labour of its people.52
(p. 117)
Within the context of Winstedt and Wilkinson's story, Malay feudalism served as a
convenient ploy for British intervention. The Malay chiefs are seen as backward,
degenerate, uncivilized and retarded. Birch's efforts in ending Malay feudalism and
bringing about modernization in Perak, therefore, take on a heroic aspect.
Winstedt's predecessor Wilkinson was not a full-time scholar, but he was never-
theless an expert who translated Malay texts and whose job was to interpret the Malay
states for his compatriots. He was one of the earliest writers to study the Melaka
Sultanate through the use of Malay literary texts like the Sejarah Melayu (The Malay
51
R.O. Winstedt and R.J. Wilkinson, A History of Perak (first published as JMBRAS, vol. 12, June
1934; reprinted by MBRAS, 1974). The following quotations are all taken from this work; emphasis added.
52
Writing in 1947, Winstedt described kerah as "a feudal service" of the Malay peasant to his overlord
in return for occupation of land. See Richard Winstedt, The Malays: A Cultural History (London: Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul, 1958; first published in 1947), p. 56.
Annals). Through his studies, he had concluded that Melaka was a feudal society. He
used terms like "vassal" and "fief to describe its features:53
... .he bestowed Kampar as a fief on its conqueror, Seri Nara di Raja....
. . . . At its head he put the Dato Seri Udani, feudal Chief of Perba....
The new vassaZ-state was to cover the whole coast from the River Sedili in the
south to Irengganu in the North.
In many of his summaries of the Sejarah Melayu, Wilkinson depicted Melaka society
and its government in feudal terms. This perspective seems to have influenced later
British scholars like C.C. Brown, whose English translation of the Sejarah Melayu
(The Malay Annals) also presents the Melaka Sultanate as a feudal society. Brown uses
the terms "fief and "vassal" throughout his translation.54
Representation and Reality

The foregoing discussion has shown that a variety of factors had motivated British
writers in the nineteenth century to use the term "feudal" to describe the Malay states
in the pre-colonial period. These states were thereby consigned to a "feudal" stage
identical to that in the history of Western Europe. At this point, Clifford concluded,
they had stopped. The evidence to support these allegations came from the following
sources: European history, the writers' personal observations of the Malay states,
travellers' accounts, native informants and Malay literary and historical texts. Un-
deniably, they searched for the truth and the reality of the Malay past; but they did
so by looking to something which had existed in the European past. The writing of
history necessarily entails selection and interpretation of facts; they, therefore, tried to
present a coherent account of what seemed an inchoate past by placing it within a
Western mould. It is clear that idiom or language has been used to describe and ex-
plicate as well as to "invent" the historical reality of Malay feudalism. In order words,
their knowledge of the Malay pre-colonial past is primarily presented to us in textual
form. However, this does not mean as some post-modernist literary theorists claim,
that there is no reality outside our textual representations of it. The question of histor-
ical truth remains a controversial issue among historians, and it is the alloted task of
all historians always to seek it. In this respect we should regard the earlier colonial
representation of Malay feudalism as one of several representations of reality.
Let us evaluate the colonial evidence on Malay feudalism. Firstly, the British writers
do not claim that all the elements of European feudalism are found within "Malay
feudalism". They were aware that a large-scale agricultural economy in the pre-colonial
Malay peninsular states was absent, as observed by Crawfurd, yet despite this, they
kept describing the majority of Malays as "peasants". In persisting with this notion,
did they defy the facts, or were they governed by a theory or a belief that the world
everywhere was socially composed of "peasants" and others? In their eyes, "peasants"
simply connote a subordinate class of followers, poor, rural, and land-based, always
eking out a subsistance agriculture livelihood, linked together by kinship ties, who
53
See R.J. Wilkinson, "The Malacca Sultanate", in JMBRAS 13, 2 (Oct. 1935): 22-69, passim; emphasis
added.
54
Sejarah Melayw The Malay Annals, trans. C.C. Brown (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press,
1976). For uses of the term "fief, see pp. 60, 77, 100, 118, 121, and 150.
resided in a village, and whose surpluses were always appropriated by their chiefs.
Malays in states like Kedah, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Kelantan and other east
coast states grew rice, yam, bananas, coconuts and other subsistence crops. This was
why writers like Maxwell, Clifford, Wilkinson, Winstedt and Linehan had not hesitated
to regard the activities of the bulk of Malay population as rural and land-based
peasants. Repeatedly, they identified the following evidence to justify "feudalism" in
the Malay states: (a) ties of obedience and protection which bind rulers and chiefs,
between greater chiefs and lower chiefs, between lower chiefs and peasants; (b) "fief-
holding" among the chiefs, and (c) the district chiefs had rights of government, and
the rights to impose taxes, forced labour and military service on the peasantry.
The British writers observed that under "Malay feudalism" not only was fief-holding
widely practised, but authority was also frequently fragmented, as in Pahang, with
the alleged division of fiefs among 96 chiefs. In each "fief the chief is said to have
ruled like the king, unless someone more powerful successfully challenged his position.
Loyalty to the State as such did not exist among the population. Everyone had to owe
loyalty to a chief, who in turn had to owe loyalty to a greater chief. This meant that
a king could not easily command the loyalties of the followers of a district chief
without first obtaining that chiefs approval. The peasant provided labour services and
served as servant, labourer, soldier, ceremonial escort, or as a member of the retinue
of followers to enhance the dignity of his chief.
The British writers also observed that the "feudal" Malay chiefs were more powerful
than the Sultans. There was an occasional autocratic Malay king like Baginda Omar
of Trengganu, but even in such a case the powers of the chiefs were not completely
wiped out. Vassalage sanctioned by written contracts or ceremonial oaths did not exist,
yet lower chiefs were expected to pay homage to greater chiefs, and all chiefs to the
king. There was also no manor or manorial economy as in Europe, yet peasants who
lived within the subsistence economy of the village all bound themselves to some ties
of obedience and protection under a chief. Like medieval European peasants, Malay
peasants, too, had to perform forced labour and military service. While the actual
conditions in the Malay states did not approximate to those in feudal Europe, several
features and practices of both Malay and European feudalism were indeed comparable.
In this sense, British writers who used the expression "semi-feudal Malay states"
were cautiously nearer the truth. The Malay states seemed to be "feudal" states only
in their social and political organization, but not in economic terms. Because of this,
the British colonial writers have used the term "feudalism" rather loosely, making its
meaning vague. With the exception of Clifford, who commented in great detail on
Pahang and Trengganu's "feudal system", no British writer ever attempted to study the
"feudal system" in any Malay state in great depth. Although Wilkinson and Winstedt
interpreted the Malay opposition to J.WW. Birch in Perak as a defence of the "Malay
feudal system", yet they did not describe and analyse the features of this system.
Similarly, Wilkinson's study of the Melaka Sultanate is a chronological study of its
kings, based on the Sejarah Melayu, and not an account of Melaka feudalism.
Maxwell studied Malay land tenure, but confined it mainly to Krian district in Perak
and the British settlement of Melaka. He did not examine the whole "Malay feudal
system" as such, apart from compiling numerous sources relating to land tenure in
Ceylon, Java and Sumatra.
Yet, it may be asked, why did the British writers not attempt to look within the
Malay states themselves, the way anthropologists do, to describe and understand their
societies on their own indigenous terms, instead of using Western terms like "feudal"
or "feudalism"? One explanation is that they regarded "feudalism" as an evolutionary
phase of human development, one which was "backward", if not "primitive", represent-
ing an earlier phase of Western historical development. Clifford especially considered
it as a universal phenomenon which every society had to pass through. This was also
largely due to the influence of Social Darwinism on the British colonial writers which
has been perceptively observed by John Gullick:55
. . . the administrators had grown up in a Victorian middle class much preoccupied
and disturbed by the Darwinian theory of evolution of natural species, with 'higher'
and 'lower' orders, and the convenient view in the high noon of imperialism that
human society was similarly making 'progress' from feudalism to enlightened (a
favourite buzz word in their vocabulary) 19th century European civilised values.
They were also not interested in the immediate past of the Malay states for its own
sake, but primarily to possess it as knowledge which could be understood. The Malay
past had to be mastered even if the keys to unlock their mysteries had to be found
within the European past. They also needed to make a distinction between the form
of independent Malay rule and their own type of colonial administration. In this
respect, there is a striking resemblance between Western historical writings on the
Middle East and the Malay states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This
is obvious from a reading of Edward Said's Orientalism, wherein he observes that
Orientalist writers on the Middle East,56
have always been inclined to impose complete transformations on other cultures,
receiving these other cultures not as they are but as, for the benefit of the receiver,
they ought to be. To the Westerner, however, the Oriental was always like some
aspect of the West; to some of the German Romantics, for example, Indian religion
was essentially an Oriental version of Germano-Christian pantheism. Yet the
Orientalist makes it his work to be always converting the Orient from something
into something else....
In short, a major critique of such Western historical writings is that they do not at-
tempt to see the non-Western societies which they write about on their own terms. By
using Western terms to describe Malay societies of the past, the British writers, too,
were inevitably involved in a Western discourse and tended to look at the early Malay
societies as a familiar type of society which had existed in the Western past.
Post-independence Discourse on Malay Feudalism

Having identified some of the problems and weaknesses in the British colonial usage
of "Malay feudalism", the question may be asked: Is the theory of "feudalism" of no
sociological value? Does its being a Western term and the fact that it was discovered
and used by British colonial writers negate its usefulness? If we look at the post-
55
Gullick's comments in a personal communication, dated 18 July 1993.
56
Ibid., p. 67.
independence discourse on feudalism among local writers in peninsular Malaysia since

independence in 1957, we have to admit that they have found the term useful. I have
used the term "post-independence" discourse, and not "post-colonial" discourse in the
discussion that follows deliberately because "post-colonial" critique, as it is under-
stood by some post-modernist writers like Edward Said, means an interrogation of
colonial discourse, or colonial history aimed at "deconstructing" the centrality of the
West within culture, politics and economics. What follows is not a "post-colonial"
critique of the earlier colonial discourse on the Malay pre-colonial past, but a critique
from a nationalist, Marxist or a secular academic perspective. Although they do not
refer to the earlier British colonial historiography, anti-imperialist or nationalist writers
like Kassim Ahmad, Syed Hussein Alatas and Mahathir Mohamad also term the pre-
colonial period of Malay history as "feudal", meaning "decadent", "unenlightened",
or "oppressive". They have used these terms in defence of the downtrodden and ex-
ploited Malay masses, whose cause they champion. In this respect, their perspective
is almost identical to that of the earlier colonial writers, who had used a similar
chronology, idiom and meaning as contained in the phrase Malay feudalism. First
Kassim Ahmad and then Syed Hussein Alatas were involved in the early discussions
of post-independence discourse on Malay feudalism. Since then, however, only a hand-
ful of Malaysian scholars have become interested in feudalism as a way of understand-
ing the Malay pre-colonial past. Kassim used his own reading of the general theory
of feudalism to study the character of early Melaka society as found in the text of the
Malay literary classic, Hikayat Hang Tuah. According to his interpretation (1959), the
Hikayat Hang TUah portrayed a conflict between traditional and modern values within
a certain historical period in the Melaka Sultanate, i.e., between the "feudal" concept
of absolute/blind loyalty to the ruler and that of justice. Kassim regarded the warrior
Hang Tuah as a symbol of the former, and his friend and fellow-warrior Hang Jebat
as a symbol of the latter. "Jebat is a rebel", writes Kassim. "He rebels against the
existing feudal order. "57 To demonstrate his loyalty to the Sultan, Hang TUah killed
his friend when ordered to do so by the ruler. Hang Jebat, on the other hand, had
risen against his ruler in defence of "justice" for Hang TUah, believing him to have
been put to death on a false charge and without a trial. Kassim describes Melaka
society as "a feudal-agricultural structure based on a servant-master relationship".58
Alatas, however, focused on the historical continuity of certain features of Malay
feudalism up to the present day. In a 1966 article, "Feudalism in Malaysian Society",59
Alatas observed that the institutional and judicial system of feudalism had gradually
disappeared in the peninsular Malay states since the beginning of modernization
during the latter part of the nineteenth century. However, the psychological traits
57
Kassim Ahmad, Characterisation in Hikayat Hang TUah (Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka,
1966), p. 33. Kassim's study was submitted as an academic exercise to the Malay Studies Department at the
University of Malaya in 1959.
. 58Ibid., p. 6.
59
Syed Hussein Alatas, "Feudalism in Malaysian Society: A Study in Historical Continuity", Civilisa-
tions 43,4 (1968).
of feudalism had remained. He called this "psychological feudalism". In 1972, he

expanded his views further by stating:60
The description of feudalism derived from Western history should not be applied
too literally to Southeast Asia. A comparative form of relationship existed. In
Southeast Asia there was the equivalent of the feudal lord — the chief, or raja, of
a small area. He was the immediate fountain of authority. He performed many
of the functions of the European feudal lord though his position was not entirely
identical....
He defined seven broad and general structures said to have been found in "the feudal
societies of the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians". "Unfortunately", he adds, "the
terminology has to be borrowed from European history. But nevertheless it should not
be understood as portraying identical phenomena."61 By "psychological feudalism",
Alatas meant an attitude or relationship characterized by personal attachment to the
leader, in which the subordinate is expected to be loyal and faithful under all cir-
cumstances in a manner that sometimes comes into conflict with the norms and ethics
of his work, or religious values.
Alatas' views influenced two of his students, Chandra Muzaffar and Shaharuddin
b. Maaruf, who in their respective works have expressed almost identical views on
Malay feudalism. Chandra Muzaffar accepts R. Coulborn and J.R. Strayer's definition
that feudalism is "a method of government, a certain relationship between the protec-
tor (the feudal lord) and the protected (his vassal)". In his book Protector?,62 he is
concerned with the "Malay protector-protected relationship", whose origins he traced
to the Melaka Sultanate. Chandra explains in the book that he had used "a political,
rather than an economic conception of feudalism". On the other hand, Shaharuddin
Maaruf states:63 "By 'feudalism' I mean both a method of social organization as
well as the corresponding psychological elements." While Chandra has paid more
attention to ties of loyalty between Malay protector and protected through the cen-
turies, Shaharuddin has focused on the persistence of Malay feudal values within
concepts of heroes and hero-worship, nationalism and economic development in
present-day Malaysian society.64
When these studies were being made by Kassim and the others, writers and public
figures were also expressing their personal views on Malay feudalism. As an example,
in 1970 a leading political figure, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, (now the Malay-
sian Prime Minister), briefly discussed "the feudal nature of Malay society" in his
Introduction in Syed Hussein Alatas, Modernization and Social Change: Studies in Social Change
in Southeast Asia (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1972).
61
Ibid., Introduction.
"Published Penang: Aliran, 1979. See pp. vii, 1.
63
Shaharuddin b. Maaruf, Concept of a Hero in Malay Society (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press,
1984), p. 6.
^These ideas have been developed in his Concept of a Hero in Malay Society, and in his second
book Malay Ideas on Development: From Feudal Lord to Capitalist (Singapore: Times Books International,
1988).
book, The Malay Dilemma.^ Observing that rank and privileges placed the Malay
rajas and princes at the top of present-day Malay society, Mahathir commented that
the "feudalist" inclination of the Malays was not damaging because "feudalism can be
beneficial if it facilitates changes". However, with regard to the Malay value system
under which the Malays followed their leaders, Mahathir asserted that Malay leaders
like the rajas must be willing to change and to institute changes, otherwise there was
little hope for the Malay masses. Mahathir's interest in Malay feudalism was apparently
of long standing, but it is not known what authors or books influenced his ideas.
However, on 2 December 1990 in a speech as president of the leading Malay political
party, UMNO, to the UMNO general assembly in Kuala Lumpur, Mahathir delivered
a scatching criticism of the Malay rulers and the Malay "feudal period" in history:66
Before being colonised, the Malay states were under the feudal system of Govern-
ment where only the royal household and territorial chiefs were involved in politics.
The Malay masses had no role whatsoever. The political situation was seldom
stable. Attempts to topple the rulers of the Malay states were made all the time.
This inevitably weakened the Malay sultanates and lawlessness was the order of
the day. That was why colonisers had an easy time intervening, influencing and
eventually taking over the administration.
Like Kassim Ahmad's and Alatas' studies, these observations also focused on the
reciprocal relations between Malay rulers and their subjects. These writers have not
noticed or commented on other aspects of Malay feudalism which have been observed
by British colonial writers. Other Malaysian scholars who have also identified "feudal"
Malay states are: historian Lim Teck Ghee (Perak),67 sociologist Syed Husin Ali
(Melaka Sultanate),68 and historian Rahmat Saripan (Kelantan).69
There are, of course, detractors of Malay feudalism. Sociologist Wan Hashim of
the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, takes a strictly Marxist perspective of feudalism
65
Mahathir bin Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma (Singapore: Federal Publications, 1981), pp. 169-73.
This work was written when Mahathir was in the political wilderness in the late 1960s. On its first publica-
tion, the book was banned by the Malaysian Prime Minister TUnku Abdul Rahman, but the ban was later
lifted when Mahathir became Prime Minister. The reasons for the ban are believed to have been related to
the author's outspoken views on policies concerning the Malays during the Tunku's regime. In fact, in 1968
Mahathir spoke favourably of the European feudal system of the past, and also of Malay hereditary titles
and the Malay Sultans. He said the feudal system "permitted an orderly society" and particularly praised
the undertaking by the vassals of a feudal lord to serve and defend the lord's fief in return for protection
for himself and his land as "not only just but necessary". He added, "But it is impossible to accuse the
Sultans of oppression." See Dr Mahathir Mohd., MP, "In Defence of Feudalism", Opinion 2,1 (November
1968): 183-84. I am grateful to Dr. P. Arudsothy for drawing my attention to this article.
^See the full speech of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir in Utusan Malaysia, 4 Dec. 1990. The quotation is my
translation.
67
Lim Teck Ghee, Peasants and Their Agricultural Economy in Colonial Malaya, 1874-1941 (Kuala
Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 3-4.
68
S. Husin Ali, The Malays: Their Problems and Future (Kuala Lumpur: Longmans, 1981), pp. 11-12.
69
Rahmat Saripan, Perkembangan Politik Melayu Tradisional Kelantan, 1776-1842 (Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1979), p. 46. He agrees with Graham's description of early Kelantan as com-
prising "feudatory" districts and territories. See W.A. Graham, Kelantan: A State in the Malay Peninsula
(Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1908), pp. 41, 43. Graham served as Resident Commissioner for
Siam on the recommendation of the British government.
as a social formation or "mode of production". Wan Hashim also doubts that feudal-
ism existed in pre-colonial Perak state.70 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia historian,
Mohamed Yusof Ibrahim, is also sceptical concerning whether feudalism existed in
the Melaka Sultanate. To him, Melaka thrived on trade instead of agriculture, prac-
tised a money economy, had slavery and accorded women a high social status — all
of which, he insists, do not point to feudalism.71 Although the legal digest of Melaka,
the Undang-Undang Melaka,12 proves that Melaka Malays practised agriculture, this
has not been given much credence by Mohamed; he also regards the city-port of
Melaka as representing the whole territory of Melaka, although its size in the fifteenth
century was rather extensive, beginning from Kedah state in the north of the Malay
peninsula to the Riau islands at the extreme south. While trade had taken place in
the port-city of Melaka only, the entire bulk of Melaka population would have been
involved in some form of subsistance cultivation.73 As for slavery, medieval "feudal"
Europe from the ninth to the twelfth centuries also practised slavery, which gradually
died out by the fourteenth century. Sweden was the last feudal European state to
abolish slavery in the fourteenth century.74 A money economy had also penetrated
feudal Europe. The status of women was never a litmus test anywhere for feudalism.
A recent critic of "Malay feudalism" is another historian, Khoo Kay Kim, who
claims that pre-colonial Malay societies were initially maritime and trading societies.
Later, these societies became riverine, but not agricultural. Referring to the colonial
historiography, Khoo cites the works of Clifford and John Anderson, using the latter
to disprove the former's view that precolonial Malay society was feudal. Because more
and more riverine districts came under Malay chiefs and princes in the late nineteenth
century, Khoo argued, Clifford (in his 1895 report of his expedition to Terengganu
and Kelantan) had been prompted to describe Malay society as feudal, while John
Anderson had seen such river settlements earlier, but did not describe them as feudal.
This view is in contrast to Khoo's position in 1974, when, in evaluating the Pangkor
Treaty of 1874, under which the Perak Sultan asked for British protection, on the
occasion of its centenary he described Malay ruler-ruled relations as "feudal": "con-
trary to British claims that Malay society was rendered more egalitarian since the
Pangkor Engagement by the abolition of slavery and the corvee system, the traditional
feudal bond between the masses and the ruler was, in effect, strengthened".75 However,
in his reference to British colonial historical writings on Malay feudal society, he is
70
Wan Hashim, Peasants Under Peripheral Capitalism (Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
1988), pp. 45, 53.
71
Mohd. Yusof Ibrahim, "Melaka 1400-1500: Beberapa Aspek Sejarah Kemasyarakatannya", in Dokumen-
tasi Seminar Sejarah Melaka (14-18 December 1976), (ed.) Asmad (Melaka: Kerajaan Melaka, 1983),
pp. 79-100.
72
See Liaw Yock Fang, Undang-Undang Melaka (Leiden: Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal, Land- en
Volkenkunde, 1975).
73
See Tbm6 Pires, Suma Oriental, pp. 259-60, for this geographical description of Melaka.
74
Perry Anderson, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism (London: Verso, 1981), p. 180.
75
Khoo Kay Kim, "The Pangkor Engagement of 1874", JMBRAS 47,1 (July 1974): 1-14; emphasis added.
mistaken in saying that they confined their discourse to only the relationship between
the Malay ruler and his subjects:76
Malay society in the past (before the British administration) has often been des-
cribed as feudal. The term 'feudal' was first used by British officials in the 19th
century in reference to the relationship between the ruler and the subject class. It
is a moot point whether the term accurately describes the situation which prevailed.
'Feudal' has a specific historical context. Derived from the situation which existed
in Europe, it described the medieval European form of government based on the
relation between vassal and superior arising from the holding of lands on condition
of homage and service....
Bearing in mind that Malay society was, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth cen-
turies, maritime and in the nineteenth century, riverine in character, it must be seriously
considered whether it is at all appropriate to describe Malay society in those days
as feudal which was, as pointed out earlier, a situation which prevailed in medieval
Europe. For one thing, it would be difficult to speak in terms of the means of pro-
duction where little was "produced".
Although Khoo dislikes model-construction, theory or a priorism in history, and is

a true Rankean who believes the historian's duty is to tell "how it really was",77 yet
in holding to the view that pre-colonial Malay society was not agricultural, but mari-
time and trading in nature, he himself has now put forward a theory which is open
to challenge.78
Conclusion
The discourse on Malay feudalism has shown that writers and scholars have found
the term "feudalism" useful and made of it what they will. The seventeenth-century
European historian had to invent the term "feudal" to represent a period (ninth-twelfth
century) in European history, although Europeans who lived through the period
hardly knew of its existence. Likewise, the colonial writer, or the Malaysian politician
or scholar, has interpreted "Malay feudalism" according to his understanding of the
term. Despite being motivated by a variety of factors to use the term "feudalism", the
76
See Khoo Kay Kim and Ranjit Singh Malhi, "Early Malay Society Was Not Feudal", Sunday Star,
weekend newspaper, 11 April 1993. Although the weekly column "History Alive" bears the names of two
persons, it is believed that the author of the above article is Khoo, who writes mainly on Malaysian history.
See his articles "Malays were traders not peasant farmers" (Sunday Star, 28 March 1993) and "Little Evidence
that Malays Tilled the Land" (Sunday Star, 6 June 1993). Writing of British colonial historians, Khoo has
said: "Although colonial officials such as Winstedt, Wilkinson and others did write the history, individually,
of the peninsular states, the results have not been satisfactory. The writings of the British colonial officials
were also oriented towards the activities of Western powers and, being part-time historians, their research
was somewhat superficial." See his article, "United and Yet Diverse" (Sunday Star, 25 April 1993).
77
In a recent article, Khoo has taken to task younger Malaysian historians who have studied Malaysian
history from a perspective different from the conventional/narrative approach by using theory and by follow-
ing trends in Europe and America. See his article, "Malaysian Historiography: A Further Look", Kajian
Malaysia 10,1 (June 1992): 37-62.
78
See D.J.M. Tate's letter in Sunday Star, 30 May 1993. late wrote that he was one of those who believed
that "agriculture has for centuries played a very important part in the life of Malay communities and that
in common with the other traditional inhabitants of this region agriculture forms one of the basic characteristics
of Malay culture and society". He also remarked that "no society, of course, started off as peasants. We
all began as hunters, then farmers, then traders".
British colonial writers identified certain identical features in Malay and European
feudalism, such as social hierarchy, fief-holding and fragmentation of authority. The
Malaysian politician or scholar has, however, seen fit to identify only one or two sur-
viving features in present-day Malay society such as "blind loyalty" (Kassim Ahmad),
"psychological feudalism" (Alatas) and rank-consciousness (Mahathir). We should
realise that no resemblance can be exact. On the other hand, the detractors of "Malay
feudalism" have found no evidence of "feudal society", or from their theoretical
understanding of the term consider it inapplicable to the pre-colonial Malay states.
There are, of course, alternative approaches for the study of the pre-colonial past
of non-Western societies. The scholar Michael Adas has invented a new term, the
"contest state", to describe many of the pre-colonial states in Southeast Asia, which
frequently suffered from internal successsion disputes.79 Others like John Gullick have
scrupulously avoided the use of any terminology to describe the pre-colonial Malay
state. In a highly-acclaimed study, he has emphasized that control of land was less
important than control of people in nineteenth century Malaya: "Where land is not
a scarce commodity, however, and this was the case in the Malay States, political power
even though it is exercised in respect of defined territorial areas is based on control
of people."80 Gullick's impact on many scholars today is great. His different point of
view leads me to the question: Why, then, did Clifford, Maxwell, and other British
writers continually repeat the notion that Malay "feudalism" involved the raja's control
over land rather than of people? We have already discussed the British writers' em-
phasis on fief-holding as an important feature of Malay feudalism; in addition, they
were motivated to give land a greater economic value. While land resources were
abundant, human resources were scarce. Territory was important but it had to have
population available for control of labour, agricultural supplies, military services, and
the collection of taxes. Seen in this light, fief-holding was as important as the size of
a chiefs following. Gullick's observation does not, however, negate the validity of the
British colonial writers' view, but the difference between his point of view and theirs
ought to be noted. Gullick writes:81
To me the key distinction between feudalism in the medieval sense and Malay
society is the land factor. In feudal society the grant of rights to land by a higher
authority conferred and imposed on the recipient obligations of service. But in
Malay society the ruling class claimed rights to service (kerah is the outstanding
case) from all subjects within a vaguely defined area, such as the 'district' or river
valley. Anyone who lived in that area owed service, and this was so even if, e.g.
because he was a shopkeeper or artisan, he had no land. Conversely (case quoted
by Clifford earlier) he could take up vacant land without leave provided that, by
becoming one of the raiat of the district, he gave service to his raja.
This subject awaits a more detailed study.
From the above discourse, it is clear that most historians and other scholars find
it difficult to do without abstractions or nomenclatures. Neither can they do without
79
Michael Adas, "From Avoidance to Confrontation: Peasant Protest in Precolonial and Colonial South-
east Asia", Comparative Studies in Society and History 23,2 (1981): 217-47.
80
J.M. Gullick, Indigenous Political Systems of Western Malaya (London: Athlone Press, 1958), p. 113.
For earlier reference to the size of a chiefs following as an index of his status and power, see p. 98.
81
Personal communication, 18 Jul. 1993.
a model, theory or apriorism which underlines most of such abstractions. "The familiar
fear of apriorism is misplaced: any hypothesis can be modified, adjusted or discarded
when necessary," observed the historian M.I. Finley. "Without one, however, there can
be no explanation; there can be only reportage and crude taxonomy, antiquarianism
in its narrowest sense."82 In this respect, feudalism is a useful model, theory or
analytical construct for the study of the human past, dependent on the kinds of ques-
tions being asked, the kinds of evidence that are available, and the methods of present-
ation that are appropriate. All kinds of discourse, as Finley rightly asserts, "classify,
conceptualize, generalize: behind the collection of data and their ordering in a sequence
there lies a series of judgements flowing from the historian's understanding "83
Finally, my own inclinations are to regard the pre-colonial Malay States as "semi-
feudal" states. Apart from ties of obedience and protection which bind lord and man,
fief-holding, forced labour and fragmentation of authority are the other main feudal
features which existed in pre-colonial Malay society. The observations and data of the
British colonial writers on these aspects cannot be ignored — in most cases, their
works constitute the only evidence or sources that we have on "Malay feudalism". They
deserve to be the subject of further research, even if only for a comparative study
of history and society between medieval Europe and the pre-colonial Malay states.
Although studies on "feudalism" in China, India and Japan have generated controversy,
nonetheless, some advances have been made in the understanding of the past of these
countries. However, studies of feudalism in Southeast Asian states are rather few.84 A
full-length study of feudalism in the Malay States, based on early Malay literary and
historical texts, would be particularly rewarding in clarifying any doubts about the
applicability of its concept.
82
M.I. Finley, Ancient History: Evidence and Models (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), p. 66.
83
Ibid., p. 59.
^See the following interesting essays: (a) "Feudalism as a Trope or Discourse for the Asian Past with
special reference to Thailand" by Craig Reynolds, pp. 136-54, and (b) "From Harbour Autocracies to 'Feudal'
Diffusion in Seventeenth Century Indonesia: the case of Aceh" by Takeshi Ito and Anthony Reid, pp. 197-213,
both published in Feudalism: Comparative Studies, (ed.) Edmund Leach et al. (Sydney: Sydney Association
for Studies in Society and Culture, 1985).

Kheng 1994

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kheng 1994

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Southeast Asian Studies

Additional services for Journal of Southeast Asian

Email alerts: Click here

Feudalism in Pre-Colonial Malaya: The Past as a Colonial

Cheah Boon Kheng

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022463400013503

How to cite this article:

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SEA, IP address: 134.176.129.147 on 03 May 2015

Feudalism in Pre-Colonial Malaya: The Past as a

CHEAH BOON KHENG

"Feudalism" is a controversial term, to which many different meanings have been

English Works on Malay Feudalism

T h e next reference t o M a l a y feudalism is found in William M a r s d e n ' s History of

Representation and Reality

Post-independence Discourse on Malay Feudalism

independence discourse on feudalism among local writers in peninsular Malaysia since

of feudalism had remained. He called this "psychological feudalism". In 1972, he

Although Khoo dislikes model-construction, theory or a priorism in history, and is

You might also like