The Evolution of Malay Nationhood and "Special rights" (1946-1948)

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

The Evolution of Malay Nationhood and “Special rights” (1946-1948)

Nadyaa Afiqah Binti Azerin

Abstract

malay nation rights

The study of the Malay nation and its “special rights” has been a permanent fixture in the study of Malaysian political history. Rights and privileges granted to the Malay people are embedded in the foundation of the nation state itself. However, the current discourse of Malay nationhood and Malay “special rights” is heavily oriented towards socio-economic justification of the relationship between the two. This research aims to provide an alternative way of understanding the Malay nation and its special rights by focusing on the mechanism that was involved in the construction of these concepts by charting the evolutionary process of the construction of Malay nationhood and Malay “special rights” within the context of the imperial and colonial reconstruction conducted by the British Empire in 1946-1948. The research deals with the issue of establishing the dynamic of the relationship between Malay nationhood and the allocation of “special rights”, as well as determining the role of the British Empire throughout the entire process. Through the use of primary sources in the form of constitutional drafts as well as official correspondences, textual analyses were conducted to identify specific keywords used to establish the parameters of Malay nationhood and “special rights”. In addition, the provenance and authorship of the sources themselves were also analysed in order to determine the significance of the role played by the British Empire, of which the sources were administered by. From these analyses, it appears that the British reconstruction of its colonial rule played a huge role in determining the trajectory of the construction of the Malay nation and “special rights”. Moreover, even the dynamic of the relationship between the two concepts were proven to be symbiotic and mutually dependent. This relationship was also shown to be a colonial construction meant to serve the bureaucratic function of British rule in Malaya.

Acknowledgments

I would like to dedicate this section to express my gratitude to those that have supported me in the completion of this Master thesis. First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Sergei Akopov for guiding me every step along the way throughout the duration of my Master's degree. His extensive knowledge and expertise in the field of Nationalism has helped me identify the suitable theoretical foundation for my study of nationhood in this thesis. I am truly grateful as his counsel has been invaluable in helping me translate my thoughts into coherent ideas on paper.

I would also like to convey my gratitude to Professor Alexander Semyonov for his constructive feedback that helped me to see my research in a different perspective. His meticulous and detailed feedbacks were especially helpful during the final revision of this thesis.

It would also be amiss not to mention these professors; Julia Lajus, Kirill Chunikhin, Tatiana Borisova and Elena Kochetkova that have always been there from the beginning to ensure that I am well equipped with the skills needed to complete this Master thesis. I would also like to thank Aleksandra Kasatkina for her role in reviewing my work and providing constructive comments for the process of revising my work.

As there is more to writing a thesis than putting words to paper, I would also like to express my gratitude to Asror, Cornelia, Lewis, Lois and my family as these individuals have helped me wade through all the challenges I face beyond the field of academia in completing this thesis.

Thank you.

Table of Contents

• INTRODUCTION4
• Approaches and research framework
• Method and Methodology
• Sources
• Historiography
• Existing Works of the Malay Nation and “Special Rights”

Defining nation

The Roles of Empires

Rights and “Special Rights”

• Definitions
• Nation

Special Rights

• CHAPTER I: 1946 - The (Re)Birth of a Nation
• Historical Background
• Who is a “Malay”?
• Malay or Malayan?
• Institutionalising Nationality and Rights
• What Constitutes a Malay in 1946?
• CHAPTER 2: 1948 - Ratifying Malay Nationhood and Officialising “Special Rights”
• Malayan Union- The Spark of a Nation
• The People's Nation?
• Whose Imagined Nation?
• Concluding Remarks
• CONCLUSION
• Nationhood and “Special Rights”
• The Role of Colonial and Imperial Reconstruction
• Concluding Remarks
• Summary

Further Research

• LIST OF SOURCES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Figures and Abbreviations

List of Figures

Figure 1: Chain of Command for the British Military Administration (September 1945 - March 1946)

• Figure 2: Map Of British Malaya Including the Straits Settlements, Federated Malay States And Malay States Not Included In The Federation, 1922.

Figure 3: The estimated population of Malay States, by race, in the Unfederated Malay States, Federated Malay States and the Straits Settlements 1941

• List of Abbreviations (in alphabetical order)

ACCCM - Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce of Malaya

AMCJA - All Malaya Council of Joint Action

BMA - British Military Administration

CCAO - Chief Civil Affairs Officer

FMS - Federated Malay States

KMM - Kesatuan Melayu Muda (Young Malay Union)

MCP - Malayan Communist Party

MDU - Malayan Democratic Union

MPAJA - Malayan People Anti-Japanese Army

PUTERA - Pusat Tenaga Ra'ayat

SAC SEAC - Supreme Allied Commander South East Asian Command

UFMS - Unfederated Malay States

UMNO - United Malays National Organisation

Introduction

Despite having no direct interest or participatory role in the Second World War, Malaya was inadvertently dragged into a chain reaction that would eventually saw the genesis of its modern nation in the 1940's. The events that followed would lead to an eventual construction of the Malay nation as well as the designation of “special rights” that would have an everlasting impact on the modern Malay nation up to this day.

This research aims to examine this particular construction of nation, as well as its relationship with the designation of the “special rights” for the Malay people through the lens of imperial and colonial reconstruction right after the end of the Second World War. Through this research, I aim to dissect the decision-making process that went on behind the policies that helped shape the trajectory of Malay nationhood and the special rights accorded to them. In doing so, I hope to answer the main research question; how has Malay nationhood and its “special rights” evolved from 1946-1948?

As the main research question does seem rather general, this research would also examine few sub-questions that would hopefully contribute to understanding the bigger picture in the construction of the Malay nation and its special rights. Among those questions are;

1. What was the dynamic of the relationship between the Malay nation with its special rights?

2. What were the specific rights categorized under “special rights” that were significant in the aforementioned relationship dynamics?

3. Who were the main driver or historical actors behind the official construction of the Malay nation and institutionalization of its special rights throughout 1946-1948?

4. How has the element of colonial and imperial reconstruction of order affected the trajectory or direction of Malay nation-building in 1946-1948?

By also examining the sub-questions above, this research aims to chart out the evolutionary track of Malay nationhood and its special rights by dissecting the reasoning as well as the decision-making process or mechanism behind the nation-building project in 1946-1948. In short, I aim to examine the whys, the whos and the hows behind the construction of the Malay nation and its” special rights” in this research paper.

Approaches and Research Framework

This research mainly revolves around the process of the nation-building in British Malaya, with an additional focus on the relationship between Malay nationhood with the so-called “special rights” that were accorded to the Malay people in 1946-1948. That being said, despite having nation as the main subject for this research, the analyses that will be put forward in this paper will be through the perspective of imperial and colonial reconstruction of order. In short, this paper would utilise an imperial framework instead of solely relying on the national perspective for its analyses. The decision to approach this research from the imperial framework is also due to the underrepresentation of this perspective within the historiography in the study of the Malay nation-building. The British involvement were made into a static point in the past, with the national and ethnic division of the Malayan population being attributed to mere “colonial legacy”, without actually delving deep into the mechanism that made it so.

The utilisation of the imperial and colonial reconstruction approach however would not completely displace the importance of the national perspective in this research. On the contrary, both imperial and national perspectives will be utilised at different points throughout the thesis. The national framework will be used mainly to discern the form of national polity that was constructed while the imperial framework will be mainly at play for the analyses of the process of those national formation(s) that took place in 1946-1948.

This can be seen later in this research paper through the discussion of works of scholars of imperial and nationalism studies, whereby literatures pertaining to the definition of nation, such as Anthony Smith's ethnie, Benedict Anderson's “imagined community” and Partha Chatterjee's post-colonial approach to Anderson's theory would be utilized when establishing the parameters of the Malay nation. Meanwhile, works of scholars of imperial studies would be used to discuss the process and mechanism behind the construction of Malay nationhood. This would mainly revolve around Karuna Mantena's work of “Alibis of Empires” entailing the reconstruction of imperial and colonial order in the British Raj, which would be a useful reference point due to the similarities to the Malayan case in 1946-1948.

Method and methodology

This research paper relies heavily on primary sources in the form of correspondences circulated within the ranks of the British colonial administration in Malaya, particularly of the Foreign Commonwealth Office, the Colonial Office as well as the Dominion Office. These three offices within the British government were the working parts of the colonial administration involved in policy-making and implementation in the Crown Colony, to which Malaya belonged to in 1946-1948. This use of primary sources, albeit central, will still be supplemented with secondary sources, particularly to serve as supporting the theoretical framework of the analyses as well as providing historical chronologies to the events occurring within this research paper.

The primary sources can be categorized into few categories, such as legal documents (e.g: constitutions, constitutional drafts and constitutional proposals), official correspondences (e.g: memos discussing official policies circulated among Offices of the British Administration) as well as correspondences between members of the Malayan public with the British Administration. Since the main part of this research deals with the parameters of the Malay nation, I am employing the method of textual analysis, where those documents will be perused in search for keywords that could help establish those parameters. Textual analysis would also be beneficial in discerning the tone used as that would also help give an insight into the decision-making process behind any imperial or colonial policy changes in 1946-1948. In addition, the analyses in this research would also take the provenance of the sources into consideration instead of solely focusing on the content of said sources. The authorship, particularly with regards to the constitutional drafts would provide a useful insight into answering the research question pertaining to the active historical actor in the construction of the Malay nation and its “special rights.”

With regards to the primary sources, it is apparent from the beginning that their source should also be included in the analyses. As aforementioned, the primary sources were all obtained from The National Archives of the United Kingdom, where it was recorded and documented by any of those aforementioned Offices of the British Administration. This would be a sticking point where it ran a serious risk of being one-sided in terms of providing accounts of events only from a single perspective. However, as this research was framed through the lens of imperial and colonial reconstruction, those documents, both in their contents and authorship provide an insight into the policy-making process in Malaya during 1946-1948. In addition, the Malaysian National Archive (Arkib Negara Malaysia) only came to exist in 1957, which would mean any records dated prior to that would have to be imported. In our case, most likely those records would be imported from the National Archives in the United Kingdom. Therefore, due to research objectives and resources limitations, the primary sources for this research were obtained exclusively from a single national archive.

Sources

The use of the primary sources is significantly affected by the research questions that I set out to answer in this research paper. The source, as well as their provenance play a crucial role in answering the question with regards to determining the role that the British Colonial Empire played as the main driver behind the construction of the Malay nation and its special rights.

As these documents originated from the National Archive of the United Kingdom, the process of their documentation and archivisation was subject to the British authority in the year they were conceived. Although all the documents were related to Malaya in 1946-1948, they were categorised into few separate categories. The categorisation itself serve to shed some light into the administrative structure as well as the decision-making process that were in place at that time in Malaya. This is apparent in the way the Malayan-related sources were placed under certain jurisdiction of British administrative offices depending on the status of Malaya as a colony.

From the documents at hand, any correspondence that involves decision-making or policies that have not been finalized, such as constitutional proposals or drafts would be placed under the Colonial Offices. Official and legally binding documents such as the Constitution of the Malayan Union would be placed under the Foreign Commonwealth Office while the UK-Malay States Agreement of 1948 Agreement, also known as the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya 1948, would be placed under the Dominions Office. The placement of these documents does not seem to be chronological nor topical. In fact, it seems that it was dependent on the status of the document as perceived by the British colonial administration. Any documents relating to policies that are not legally binding, such as discussions on future policies or proposed amendments would be placed under the Colonial Office, which seems to reflect the legal weight (or lack thereof) of those documents. However, once the documents were finalized or officialised, they would be placed under the Foreign Commonwealth Office. This can be seen with the Constitution of the Malayan Union in 1946. The theory of categorization of source being correlated with the level of autonomy seems to fit with the placement of the UK-Malay States Agreements of 1948, which marks Malaya's move towards self-rule being placed in the Dominions Office. Therefore, in the analyses further along this research, this categorization will come into play again, particularly when determining the role of certain historical actors in the construction of Malay nationhood and special rights in 1946-1948.

In addition to categorisation, the authorship of the content of the sources would also play an important role in answering the aforementioned research questions, particularly with regards to understanding the mechanism behind the policies that aided the construction of the Malay nation as well as its special rights. In this research, the main primary sources consist of legal documents such as constitutional proposals, drafts and the actual constitutions for the Malayan Union and the Federation of Malaya 1948. These documents were disproportionately authored by the British colonial administration, with few exceptions, such as the proposal by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and the Malay rulers or the suggestions for a revision of the British proposal for a constitution sent in by numerous organisations and political parties across Malaya. The main official documents that went on to be legally binding such as the two aforementioned constitutions were authored almost exclusively by the British colonial administration. Therefore, in order to understand the mechanism behind the policy-making pertaining to the subject of this research, the chain of command should first be explained.

Figure 1: Chain of Command for the British Military Administration (September 1945 - March 1946) J. M. Gullick, "Prelude to Merdeka: Public Administration in Malaya, 1945-57," South East Asia Research 5, no. 2 (1997): 156, www.jstor.org/stable/23746852

Figure 1 shows the chain of command involved in the decision-making process in Malaya, as part of the British Military Administration, who were given the mandate to rule the peninsula right after the British re-occupation. This chart albeit simplistic, is rather important in providing an insight into the workings and policies of the British colonial administration right after the re-occupation. First, the separation of Singapore from Malaya in terms of administration suggests differentiated intention. Singapore was initially a part of the Straits Settlements along with Penang. However, with the BMA replacing the previous administrative system, the Straits Settlements were dissolved, with Singapore being divorced from any policy executed in Malaya. This intention was materialized in the memorandum for the future constitution for the Malay peninsula, where Singapore was to be ruled separately from the rest of Malaya. This would also serve as a justification for the exclusion of Singapore from the analyses of the construction of Malay nationhood and special rights in this research.

Second, the chart serves to introduce H.C Willan to the reader, as his role extends beyond administrative purposes. The template for the Constitution of the Malayan Union was derived from Willan's memorandum on the constitutional proposal. However, Willan's participation was also a reflection on the way Malaya was governed. Albeit being called the British Military Administration, the administrative part was mainly civilian in nature. Ibid This poses a contradictory feature in the administration, which is also reflected in its policy-making process. The British Military Administration was initially meant to restore order i.e. halting violence after the British re-occupation of Malaya. However, this aim seems to transition into wanting to re-build and reconstruct Malaya as a British colony. This change was made apparent when a civil officer such as Willan was the man responsible for drafting a constitutional proposal that went on to become the Constitution of the Malayan Union. Willan's role can also be argued to extend to the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya 1948 as it was a revision of his original memorandum for Malayan Union. Therefore, the British Military Administration, or Willan specifically played an important role in the construction of Malay nationhood through his involvement in drafting the constitution of the Malayan Union.

Willan's role was also significant as his essential involvement was an indicator of how heavily involved the British Empire was in the process of Malayan nation-building and Malay special rights. The template for Malay Nationhood and its “special rights” was in fact authored by a British civil officer and based on the secret papers of the War Cabinet in London. The National Archives of the UK (TNA):CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 1 This particular part of the provenance of the sources would help to answer the research question in determining the role that the British Empire played in Malay nation building and Malay “special rights” in 1946-1948.

Admittedly, the British Empire played a huge role in the production of these sources. However, it should be noted that there are also sources produced by members of the Malayan public and elites. In Chapter 1, the only primary source not produced by the British colonial administration was in the form of a constitutional proposal from the Malay Council of Rulers and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). The significance of their role is immense considering the way their proposal was categorized in the archive. As aforementioned, any correspondences in a non-legally binding nature would be placed under the Colonial Office. This was applicable even to the memorandum that would end up becoming the legally binding constitution of the Malayan Union. However, this particular proposal was placed under the same folder with the Constitution of the Malayan Union in the Foreign Commonwealth Office. The placement of this proposal by the Malay rulers and UMNO reflects the importance of its authors in the nation-building process. This role was cemented not long after when UMNO and the Malay rulers were invited to be a part of the group that revise the Malayan Union Constitution to form the Federation of Malaya 1948 Agreement. The importance of this two parties would continue to be reflected throughout this research, particularly in Chapter 2.

That being said, it would be amiss to dismiss that there are sources produced by non-Malay elites such as the correspondences pertaining to the revision of the Malayan Union constitution. These correspondences were in the form of letters sent to the British colonial administration from political parties and organisations throughout Malaya. Although these sources originated from non-British sources, the way they were categorised speaks volume of their role and significance. First, they were compiled in a folder belonging to the Colonial Office. As we have established earlier, this seems to suggest a non-legally binding nature of the documents, which places them, in terms of hierarchy, beneath those compiled under the Foreign Commonwealth Office or the Dominions Office. Second, these correspondences, despite their perceived importance of criticising the revised proposal, were only labelled as “miscellaneous correspondences”. Compared to the proposal put forward by UMNO and the Malay rulers, the way these documents were categorised seems to suggest a hierarchy in terms of the importance of their role. in addition, there also seems to be a disproportionate dialogue in these correspondences which were dominated by the Malays and the Chinese, despite having established that Malaya also consisted of Indians and Eurasians. This absence could be attributed to the lack of participation of these groups of people. However, as the sources were compiled by the British government, we should also entertain the possibility that they were omitted due to perceived triviality of the documents produced by these sections of the Malayan public. Nevertheless, it highlights the huge role that the British government played in the provenance and administration of the sources. Therefore, in my analysis in the following chapters, whenever it seems as if these documents were given the back seat to those authored by the Malay elites or the British colonial administration, it was done so with the aforementioned reason.

Archives in themselves are statements of intent and ideologies. Scholar such as Ann Stoler explained this phenomenon in her works pertaining to archivisation and categorisation of sources. Ann Stoler, “Colonial Archives and the Arts of Governance,” Archival Science no. 2 (2002): 87-88 Archives are arranged based on the perspectives of their administrators. Similarly, in the case of the primary sources, the documents were compiled and categorised based on their perceived role by the British government. Stoler elaborates that archival work can be conducted either along or against it. Stoler, “Colonial Archives and the Arts of Governance,” 88-90 Therefore, in this particular research, due to the exclusive use of primary sources from the National Archives of the United Kingdom, there is a possibility of being adrift along the “archival grain” carved by the administrator of these sources if only extractive archival work was conducted. For the purpose of this research, the sources will be analysed using both methods. By dissecting the provenance and authorship of the sources, I am minimizing the risk of the work becoming purely extractive and risk being adrift along the narrative perpetuated by those administering the archives. However, at certain point in the research, the act of perpetuating the narrative of the archive's administrator i.e. the British government in itself became a part of the argument on how significant the role that the British Empire played in shaping the trajectory of Malay nation-building and Malay “special rights.”

Historiography

Existing Works on the Malay nation and “special rights”

It would be amiss not to note how dominant of a role that the study of Malay nationhood and “special rights” has in Malaysian history. In fact, there are numerous works done on the relationship between the two, with even a special term coined for these “special rights” - Ketuanan Melayu. Ketuanan Melayu can be translated as either Malay Supremacy or Malay Paramountcy

Most of these works emphasizes the socio-economic role in the study of the Malay nation and its “special rights”, citing interracial economic gap as the need for economic privileges for the Malays. In these instances, Malay' special rights” were discussed in the context of affirmative action, such as was done by scholars such as Jomo Kwame Sundaram, R.S. Milne, and James Chin where the “special rights” were mainly discussed as a form of economic policies of economic action in the form of the New Economic Plan drafted by the Malaysian government after 1969. Jomo Sundaram, “The New Economic Policy and Interethnic Relations in Malaysia.” United Nations Research Institute of Social Development. 7, no. 9 (2004) R. S. Milne “`National Ideology' and Nation-Building in Malaysia.” Asian Survey 10, no.7 (1970): 563. doi:10.2307/2642955. James Chin. “The Costs of Malay Supremacy.” The New York Times, August 27. 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/opinion/the-costs-of-malay-supremacy.html. The date to which the “special rights” were discussed is alarming as it suggests an omission of the role of Malaya's colonial past in this decision-making process.

That being said, the role of Malaya's colonial past was not completely omitted but instead relegated into a “footnote” in the study of this relationship between the Malay nation with its special rights. Scholar such as Helen Ting admits that these economic special rights were a “relic of Malaysia's colonial past”. Helen Ting, “Malaysian History Textbooks and the Discourse of Ketuanan Melayu.” In Race and Multiculturalism in Malaysia and Singapore, ed. Daniel P.S. Goh, Matilda Gabrielpillai, Philip Holden, Gaik Cheng Khoo (Routledge,2009), 22 This is supported by Molly Lee who suggested that the British divide et impera policy contributed to the “ethnic cleavage” that led to the need for such “special rights” for the Malay. Molly N. N. Lee, “Education and the State: Malaysia after the NEP.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 17, no.1 (1997):28. doi:10.1080/02188799708547741. However, in these instances, Malaya's colonial past was only mentioned as a thing of the past, not as an active actor but merely in the context of what it had done in the past. Instead, these legacies and relics were used catalysts for the Malay nation to take more of an active role in its own nation-building process. Similar to how Anderson claimed that Empires are only “studied in the past”, in favour of the nation-state, historiography of the Malay nation and its “special rights” seems to have taken the same path by relegating the British colonial empire into the footnotes of its history. Benedict Anderson, Alexander Semyonov, and Serguei Glebov. "We Study Empires as we do Dinosaurs: Nations, Nationalism, and Empire in a Critical Perspective, Interview with Benedict Anderson." Ab Imperio 2003, no. 3 (2003): 72. doi:10.1353/imp.2003.0068.

Although these works will not be directly incorporated in examining the research question in this paper, they serve as a reference point in discerning the state of the historiography of Malay nationhood and Malay “special rights” in current academia.

Defining Nation

When it comes to defining nation, there is an abundance of literatures that offer an answer to the question of “what is a nation?”. However, when discussing the parameters of the Malay nation, only few of those will serve as the basis of the analyses in this research paper. According to the research questions stated above, it was established that there is at least one active historical actor responsible in determining the parameters of the Malay nation. This premise is representative of the approach of nation being a man-made construction, or to be more precise, a social construct. In the case of the Malay nation, it seems appropriate to at least bring Benedict Anderson's “imagined community” into the picture to at least lay the foundation of the arguments in this research. According to him, this form of categorisation of people into nation a social constructed concept and that those shared traits are “imagined” by society that created such category instead of deriving those traits organically. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), 6 This interpretation of nation can be seen in the way the Malay nation was defined in the current Federal Constitution of Malaysia, where the characteristics of someone who is a Malay extends beyond simply being born from Malay parent(s), but also as “someone who practices Malay culture, speaks the Malay language and is a Muslim”. Malaysian Constitution, art. 160, clause 2. Web. http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/FC/Federal%20Consti%20(BI%20text).pdf As shown in these characteristics underlined in the Constitution, the definition of the Malay nation is constructed along ethnic, religious and sociocultural parameters. Therefore, the community, that is the Malay nation, was imagined and manifested along those lines. However, in defining this “imagined community”, Anderson specified that this community is imagined by those “who perceive themselves as part of that group”. With this caveat, few issues arose since the construction of the Malay nation in this research is examined within the context of the Malay category being a colonial construction i.e. externally constructed. This brings Partha Chatterjee's essay of “Whose imagined community?” into the picture. Chatterjee's essay questioned the origin of the “imagination” that constructed these communities in the context of the colonies. He argues that the communities in the colonies were not imagined but “modeled “after existing communities imagined by the colonial masters. This puts the construction of nation within the context of this research i.e. nation-building as a part of an imperial and colonial reconstruction.

Although defining nation as a social construct forms the foundation of this research, another element to this construction is grounded on certain ethnic origins. This can be explained using Anthony Smith's approach to nation as a continuation of an ethnie. Anthony Smith, National Identity (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 14 Although the parameters of nation itself is socially constructed, the construction can be said to be based on former traits associated with the Malays race, such as their customs, religion and linguistic features. Smith's approach to nation is essential in studying the Malay national genesis as it provided a certain baseline to which any socially constructed form can be compared to. This way, the progression or evolution of the Malay nationhood can be charted in a more transitionary manner instead of appearing as a sudden rupture.

The Roles of Empires

Since the end of the First World War, it seems that Empires were slowly being replaced by nation-states, with the world entering a global transitionary period into a Westphalian-based system. This transition also extends to the world of academia, where empires were relegated into the realm of the past. This displacement of empires by nation-state was explained by Benedict Anderson, who likened empires to dinosaurs, implying that it is only studied as the thing of the past. Anderson, Semyonov, and Glebov,"We Study Empires as we do Dinosaurs,” 72 This relegation of empires into the realm of the past in the study of global history was also a reflection of the political system that the world operates in, particularly in a post WWI world, where empires fell, and nation-states arose from the ruins. This can also be seen in the case of Malaya, where the genesis of the Malay nation in 1946 was mainly discussed in the context of nations, with the role of the British colonial empire being relegated into a thing of a Malayan past. This is apparent in the language used when discussing the categorization of the Malays and non-Malay communities in Malay being labeled as the “colonial legacy”. Sheila Nair, “Colonial `Others' and Nationalist Politics in Malaysia.” Akademika 54 (January 1999): 57 http://ejournal.ukm.my/akademika/article/view/3035. The use of the word “legacy” can be said to be indicative of a static and non-active role played by the colonial empire in shaping Malay nationhood. In fact, most of literatures aforementioned pertaining to Malay nation-building and special rights were more nationally-oriented, with less focus on the active role of the British empire during the entire process.

Although the study of nation-building is often heavily oriented towards the national perspective, there are still literatures that discusses the process through the lens of empires. Scholar such as Karuna Mantena discusses the categorization of communities in the colonies through the perspective of imperial reconstruction of order, to which a parallel can be drawn with the Malayan case. In relation to the study of the Malay nation and its “special rights” as a colonial construct, this research also utilizes the work of Karuna Mantena, “Alibis of Empire” in order to provide an insight into the justification or “alibis” of the British Empire in its ideological shift after the re-occupation of Malaya. Mantena's analysed Maine's theory of imperial ideological shift from a universalist to a culturalist policy in the British Raj after the Sepoy mutiny. Karuna Mantena, Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010), 2-3 The application of the shift of imperial ideologies and policies back in the British Raj can be applied to Malaya in a sense that the shift seems to occur after a disruption in the British colonial rule and the shift was meant to facilitate the reconstruction of colonial rule in both colonies respectively. When discussing colonial reconstruction of imperial rule in Malaya, literatures regarding the role of Empire in socially engineering the society in the colonies should also be taken into account as they are relevant to the study of the construction of Malay nationhood. This phenomenon of “social engineering” is highlighted by Frederick Cooper in “Tensions of Empires” where he explained that the construction of categories within the population in the colonies was conducted to facilitate the interest of the ruling colonial force. Frederick Cooper, Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 4 The significant influence of colonial imperial force in altering social dynamics in the colonies was also highlighted by Ann Stoler through the discussion Ranajit Guha and Greg Dening's “warning” with regards to sources being a form of dissemination of “colonial truths” through the process of archiving documents meant to validate the aforementioned categorization that was colonially constructed. Ann Stoler, “Colonial Archives and the Arts of Governance,” Archival Science no. 2 (2002): 91 Although Mantena, Cooper and Stoler speak of empires through different aspects, their works could be utilised not only to complement one another, but also as an addition to the discussion of Malay nationhood through the lens of colonial empires.

Rights and “Special Rights”

Most of the literatures mentioned pertain to the notion and definition of nation. This is due to the fact that the “special rights” accorded to the Malays were conditional upon being a part of the Malay nation. However, an important piece of work serves as an anchor in defining and justifying the link between nationhood and “special rights” in this research. In “Multicultural Citizenship”, Will Kymlicka categorises legal protection of certain groups into external and internal protections. In the case of the Malays, Kymlicka's definition of external protections provided the best fit for defining the “special rights” discussed in this research. According to him, this can be defined as such;

““External protections involve inter-group relations--that is, the ethnic or national group may seek to protect its distinct existence and identity by limiting the impact of the decisions of the larger society.” Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 36

Using this definition, the analyses and definition of the “special rights” accorded to the Malays are based upon. The use of Kymlicka's definition of external protection was appropriate not only due to the role of external actors i.e. the British colonial force but also due to link it made between rights and national identity. Based on the definition, the external protection serves as not only a safeguard to the survival of the nation, but also serve as a distinguishing feature that separates one nation from the other. A parallel can be drawn with the relationship between the Malay nation the special rights they so strongly demand and fought to protect in 1946-1948

That being said, Kymlicka's model of “external protection” was meant for a modern liberal nation-state, and not of an emerging nation that was transitioning from colonial to self-rule such as Malaya in 1946-1948. To put “special rights” in the context of empire, it is best to refer to Jane Burbank's work of “An Imperial Right's Regime”, where legislations pertaining to the rights of the citizens in the Russian Empire were discussed. According to Burbank, “rights” were understood to a part of the imperial justification for its own maintenance, where legislations were made in order to “serve and undermine” the elites, as well as to “acquire sources” from different social parts of the empire. Jane Burbank, "An Imperial Rights Regime: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire," Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 7, no. 3 (2006): 401-407. doi:10.1353/kri.2006.0031. These “rights” however were not equal but instead differentiated based on the existing categories determined by the ruling regime. Although differentiation of rights could not be precisely synonymized with “special rights”, this model of the imperial rights regime can shed a light on the concept of the Malay “special rights” in Malaya. In the case of Malaya, the “special rights” serve as a form of legislative measures put in place for the maintenance of the British imperial order, where it was used to both serve and subjugate the elites i.e. the Malay rulers, as well as acquiring resources from different social parts of the Malayan society, which was reflected in its policy granting citizenship rights to the non-Malay communities in 1946. Although the British Empire and the Russian Empire operated differently, in the case of the imperial rights regime, the same formula were used in terms of categorisation of national groups and their corresponding rights.

Using these two literatures, the Malay “special rights” will be discussed from more than one perspective. Kymlicka's definition of “external protection” plays more into defining special rights from the perspective of the members of the nation i.e. the Malays, while Burbank's work deals with the justification and reasoning of the imposition or stripping away of those rights from the point of view of the British colonial administration in Malaya.

These literatures, albeit limited, serve as a foundation for the approaches used in analyzing and examining the evolutionary process of Malay nationhood and its special rights in 1946-1948. Although other academic works may be utilized in this research, these select few are the main literature that would help shape the discussion conducted throughout this research paper.

Definitions

This research deals with few terminologies and concepts that are normative and at times, subjective. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a set of definitions of those concepts and terminologies as point of reference. The way these definitions were established would be further elaborated in following chapters.

Nation

In the case of Malaya, a Malay nation is defined as a colonially constructed community based on previously established ethnic traits. In this sense, the construction was the product of the imagination of the British colonial empire based on certain traits of the Malay ethnie such as customs, language, religion and subjecthood to the Malay rulers. This parameter of nationhood is established based on Benedict Anderson's “imagined community” in dialogue with Partha Chatterjee's take on nation-building in the colonies. This socially constructionist foundation is complemented by certain traits that were historically associated with the Malay ethnie such as their language, customs, religion and subjecthood to the Malay rulers. Although the form of the Malay nation would change as we progress through 1946-1948, the definition still remains within the aforementioned parameters.

Special Rights

From the available literatures, it is established that the “special rights” in the context of this research are intertwined with the concept of nation itself, specifically the Malay nation. For this research, “special rights” would take Kymlicka's definition of “external protection”, which was a set of rights meant to protect the “distinct existence and identity” of the Malays. These rights however, similar to the construction of nation, were externally imposed by the British colonial administration. Therefore, the perception of “special rights” in itself differs between the point of view of the Malays or the British Empire. In order to place this concept within the context of imperial and colonial reconstruction, a caveat has to be added in Kymlicka's definition of “external protection”. This caveat comes from Burbank's imperial rights regime, where the notion of differentiated rights in the interest of the Russian empire was discussed. Based on the two literatures, “special rights” in this research would be defined according to this parameter;

“A colonially imposed legislation meant to serve and control the Malay elites by according a set of economic and political privileges to the Malay population.”

Although the details of those privileges would evolve throughout 1946-1948, the parameters that the “special rights” would operate in remained the same. Based on that parameter, the specific privileges accorded to the Malays are as follows;

Political privilege

The Malays, through their subjecthood to the Malay rulers, enjoy political representation within the British administrated Malaya. This privilege is dependent on the bond of subjecthood between the Malays and the Malay rulers, as well as on the position of the Malay rulers within the colonial administration. Before 1946, as the Malay states were beyond the jurisdiction of the British monarch, the Malay rulers had complete autonomy in the ruling of their respective states. TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 1 This right to political autonomy did not extend to the parts of Malaya not ruled by a Malay ruler such as the Straits Settlements that fell under the jurisdiction of the Crown Colony and subject to the powers of the British monarch. Ibid These political privileges waned with the establishment of the Malayan Union but was returned to the Malay rulers once again with the establishment of the Federation of Malaya 1948. In the newly revised constitution in 1948, the Malay rulers and Malay representation in the Federation would constitute the majority in the legislative body. The National Archives of the UK (TNA): CO 537/2146, f. Public Relations Singapore Press Release, 57

Economic advantage

The economic advantage came not in the form of nominal values but more of a disproportionate allocation of economic revenues to the Malay community via their association to the Malay rulers. As aforementioned, in the Malay states the Malay rulers had autonomy and this autonomy extends to control over economic revenues through their ownership of state assets such as land, harbours and railways. TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 37

The revenues from these infrastructures were under the control of the Malay rulers up until 1946, when their jurisdiction had to be ceded to the governor of the Malayan Union. Due to the link of subjecthood between the Malays and the Malay rulers, the economic interest of the Malays took precedence over their non-Malay counterparts in the Malay states. That being said, the economic advantage mainly applies to the Malay elites, where among the peasantry, Malays were at a disadvantage in comparison to the Chinese and Europeans mine owners. TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 7-8

From these “special rights”, it is apparent that the Malays would acquire those privileges by their association to the Malay rulers. This however would evolve into a more widely spread privilege among the Malay population as Malaya progresses into self-rule and independence.

1. 1946 - The (Re)Birth of a Nation

1.1 Historical Background

As historical events and phenomena did not occur in vacuum, it is essential to provide a historical background to contextualise this chapter's analyses of the construction of Malay nationhood and the “special rights” accorded to it. Although the construction of Malay nationhood being discussed in this chapter refers to the time period circa 1946, few historical events and facts occurring half a decade prior serve as significant factors that may provide explanation and justification to not only the genesis of the modern Malay nation but also the trajectory that it took ca. 1946.

Figure 2: Map Of British Malaya Including the Straits Settlements, Federated Malay States And Malay States Not Included In The Federation, 1922. Source: National Archives of Singapore

The Malay peninsula has been a subject of imperial conquest for colonial empires such as the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British. By the dawn of the 20^th century, the Malay peninsula was administratively divided into 3 separate administrative unit; the Federated Malay States (FMS), the Unfederated Malay States (UFMS) and the Straits Settlements. TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 1 The Malay States consisted of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Pahang, Selangor, Johor, Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Terengganu. These states were headed by a Malay Ruler, either a Sultan or a Raja by title. These Malay states were bound by law to Great Britain through treaties signed by their respective rulers throughout the late 19^th to early 20^th century. The Straits Settlements, which consisted of Singapore and Penang were headed by British governors. Although Singapore did form a part of the Straits Settlements, the discussion of the Malay nation building throughout this thesis will largely exclude Singapore, with the main focus being on the process in the Malay peninsula instead. The exclusion of Singapore would be apparent later in the Constitutional Proposal of the Future Malayan Union where it states the separation of Singapore from the rest of Malaya. (See: TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 1) However, there were more significant differences between the three administrative units instead of their head of state. First, in terms of jurisdiction, the Malay States headed by the Malay rulers were actually protected under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. This means that they were independent from the powers of the British monarch. TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 1 The Straits Settlements however had the status of a Crown Colony, which puts it under the jurisdiction of the British monarch at that time. Even from the beginning, the Malay states were slightly privileged and given special political rights compared to their Straits Settlements counterparts. Of the three units, only the FMS had taken the initiative to mobilise themselves into a functioning political unit of a Federation of states in 1896, with its own federal Council for legislative purposes. Ibid Each one of these administrative unit differs in their administrative style, and independent of one another. This works out well due to the different socio-economic composition of the states within these units. However, it was this separation of administrative power that led to the downfall of British Malaya into Japanese hand. This was made apparent in the Memorandum for the Future Constitution of the Malay Peninsula, where one of the reasons for the centralization of administration was for defensive purposes.