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

Therefore, in 1946, two defining parameters of the Malay nation exist simultaneously, with both of them adhering to two different approaches in defining nation. Although I argue that both versions have their roots in Anderson's concept of nation as an “imagined community”, the fact that the pre-World War II version of Malay nationhood was defined and determined by an external actor, particularly a colonising force suggest that the construction of nation was subjected to an “imagination” that does not belong to the members of said nation. This goes in line with Chatterjee's dialogue with Anderson's “imagined community”, whereby the nation is not originally imagined from its members but instead taken after models of existing imagined communities. Chatterjee, Empire and Nation, 67 This highlights the external force as an active actor in the nation-building process in Malaya. However, perhaps as a sign of an evolutionary process, in 1946 the approach adopted in constructing the Malay nation also shifted to include the members of said nation into its construction, where parameters of the nation were being defined by its own members instead of taken from the colonizing force at that time. Therefore, when discussing the evolution of Malay nationhood and its “special rights”, it was not only the defining parameters that are being discussed but also the mechanism that helped shaped the construction of nationhood itself.

In the span of 5 years, the concept of Malay nationhood and the “special rights” accorded to it have undergone major changes. At the beginning of the 1940's, the Malay nation were a group of people colonially constructed and categorized by their economic advantage, political participation and bureaucratic function via their bond to the Malay rulers. By the second half of the decade, the Malay nation was an internally constructed community by its own members, whereby membership to the nation were reliant on its bond to customs, religion and birthrights. Perhaps the most significant change to the parameters defining the Malay nation was the separation between nationhood with the Malay rulers. Admittedly, the Malay rulers played a role in rallying the support against the establishment of the Malayan Union. However, it was the likes of Tun Onn Jaafar and Tunku Abdul Rahman that were responsible in politically mobilising the movement of Malay nationalism in 1946. The further distancing between the Malay rulers and the Malay nation will be highlighted even more in the next chapter, where the struggle of Malay nationalism will be fought mainly by political organisations instead of by the royal institution. That being said, the Malay rulers will still play a role within the construction of the Malay nation and its “special rights”, although not in the same way as they did prior to 1946.

2. 1948 - Ratifying Malay Nationhood and Officialising “Special Rights”

So far, the construction of Malay nationhood and the designation of Malay “special rights” has been dominated by the British Colonial and later Military Administration. However, as shown in the previous chapter, the establishment of the Malayan Union and its Common Citizenship Policy in 1946 has stripped away all the previously endowed “special rights” to the Malay people as well as assimilate them into the category of the Malayan nation. This major shift in British colonial policy did not go down well with the local population, particularly with the Malay people. The establishment of the Malayan Union sparked a chain of reactions that would alter the trajectory of the pre-planned nation-building process in the Malay peninsula.

This marks the beginning of a shift in the power dynamic in Malaya, where politicised national movement began to take roots, leading to a change in British colonial policy. This chapter aims to examine the dynamic of the relationship between the two and how it affected the end result of the form of Malay nationhood and its “special rights” that would emerge later in 1948.

Similar to the previous chapter, the framework of nationhood will be analysed in accordance to Benedict Anderson's “imagined community” with Partha Chatterjee's post-colonial approach in dialogue with Anderson's theory. However, with this particular chapter, Breuilly's approach in viewing nationalism as a “political movement that seeks autonomy” will also be introduced due to its relevant in this period of Malayan history of its nation building process. Breuilly, The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, 150-151 He claims that such movement was indicative of a “distinct nation” who shared similar “interests” manifested through said political movement. Breuilly The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, 150 In the case of Malay nationalist movement in reaction to Malayan Union, similar theory can be applied as it was the lumping up of community in Malaya into a singular Malayan nation that sparked Malay nationalism in the time period between 1946-1948. The Malay community perceived themselves as a distinct nation that seeks autonomy in constructing their own “imagined community” based on their values and not the values of the British colonial administration. Breuilly's theory of nationalism being an amalgamation of three elements of identity (sentiment), organization (politics) and doctrine also seems to be applicable to the case of Malay nationhood and its “special rights” in 1946-1948. Ibid The inseparable notion of identity with organization (politics) seems to echo the situation that the Malays found themselves in 1946, where their identity is inseparable with the royal institution, the same institution that their “special rights” were tied to.

In addition, this chapter will also continue using Mantena's approach in her work “Alibis of Empire”, where a parallel can be drawn between the way the British Empire departed from their liberal imperial ideology in India after the Sepoy mutiny with their shift in policy after the anti-British movement after the establishment of the Malayan Union. Mantena, Alibis of Empire, 1-2 The shift in question refers to the departure from a “universalist” policy within a liberal imperial ideology to a more traditionally based “culturalist” policy. Mantena, Alibis of Empire, 5 In the context of the Malayan case, this shift is represented through the change from a more equal Malayan Union jus soli-based citizenship to a revised proposal for a Common Citizenship that favours the “native” of Malaya i.e. the Malays.

The analyses for Malay nationhood and the “special rights” it carries will be from the approaches mentioned above, where they will be used either to complement or in dialogue with one another.

2.1 Malayan Union - The Spark of a Nation

The Malayan Union sparked a reaction, whereby the idea of nationhood, in particular Malay nationhood became a cause for national movement. The threat of losing their identity and rights as a “Malay” through Malayan Union citizenship policy manifested itself through a series of protest and demonstrations by the Malay community. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Malaya's Constitution, p. 263 This national movement was led by the Malay elites, presenting itself as the Malay rulers and United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). Ibid These entities organized anti-Malayan Union events such as demonstrations, boycotts of the inauguration ceremony and encouraging the people to wear white bands as sign of mourning for the nation. “Malayan Union - Teladan buat generasi kini, akan datang,” Arkib Negara Malaysia, last modified November 20, 2019, http://www.arkib.gov.my/web/guest/malayan-union-teladan-buat-generasi-kini-akan-datang?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_Oj0d&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-inner-3&p_p_col_count=1&page=1 More importantly, these gestures were followed with politically significant action such as organizing the Malay Congress in January 1947, where a pan-Malay unity was reflected in the presence of forty Malay societies in assembly. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Malaya's Constitution, p. 263 The Malay Congress called not only for the abolishment of Malayan Union, but also for self-governance, a clear defiance to the British colonial presence in the Malay peninsula, as expressed in their own constitutional proposal following the establishment of Malayan Union, which was presented by UMNO and the Conference of Rulers.TNA: FCO 141/7427, f. Proposals of their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States and of The United Malay National Organisation

I argue, that it is the latter point that shaped the trajectory of Malay nation-building and the designation of “special rights” for the Malay people. At this point, the British “alibi” for its presence in Malaya was eroding. It was stuck between the rock and a hard place, between the Communist insurgents keen on getting rid of it and the Malay national movement that demands independence.

At this point, it appears that the brand of Malayan nation advocated by the Malayan Union has failed its purpose, which is to ensure reconstitution of British colonial rule in Malaya. In their effort to appease the immigrant population and prevent them from joining the Communist anti-British resistance, they have alienated their biggest supporter, the Malay elites. But why has Malayan Union failed so spectacularly?

From the Malay perspective, the Malayan Union was a betrayal of the trust the Malay elites and their subjects placed on the British. First, the Malayan Union citizenship policy and its brand of Malayan nation have not only diminished Malay “special rights”, it effectively erased the category of a Malay nation, as explained in the previous chapter. Second, the way Malayan Union came to be was deemed to be illegal, at least in the eye of the Malay people. Therefore, any agreement such as the Malayan Union would require the signature and seal from the Sultan of a state. Based on the White Paper discussing the issue of Malayan Union, it is implied that the Malay Sultans would not willingly give their signatures and seals for this type of agreement, let alone the one that would involve relinquishing their control over the economy of their dominion. This deduction was made from the employment of Sir Harold MacMichael on behalf of the Colonial Secretary to basically force the hands of the Sultans to sign away their power over their states, to which he is empowered to do so. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Malaya's Constitution, p. 262 According to the White Papers issued by the National Council for Civil Liberties, MacMichael was “empowered to depose unfriendly rulers” who refused to cede power and jurisdictions to the English monarch. Ibid Such transgression was not kindly looked upon by the Malay population, whose national identity was so strongly linked to their subjecthood and loyalty to their Sultans. Due to this particular incident, the Malay population, headed by UMNO viewed the Malayan Union as an establishment built on illegal grounds.

As aforementioned, one of the reasons for the establishment of a Malayan nation via Malayan Union Citizenship policy was to appease thenon-Malay community, particularly the Chinese by granting them similar “political rights” possessed by their Malay counterparts. TNA: CO 675/11, f. Force 136 This was meant to slow down the Communist guerilla war effort by depriving them from having disgruntled Chinese join their ranks. This, however, was not a success either, with the Chinese population viewing it as a half-hearted move, where the Malayan nation, albeit a nation was still a colonised nation. This view was explicitly expressed in the joint telegram sent by Pusat Tenaga Ra'ayat (PUTERA) and All-Malaya Council of Joint Actions (AMCJA) to the Secretary of State for Colonies, Arthur Creech Jones stating that Malaya is still perpetuated as a colony. TNA: CO 537/2146, 147

At this point, the British Colonial Force in Malaya seems to be losing the battle. The fight with the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) was still raging on and they have lost all local support due to the Malays feeling betrayed by the establishment of Malayan Union. It was the failure of Malayan Union that would lead to a complete turnover from British universalist imperial ideology into a culturalist one. Mantena, Alibis of Empire, 1-2 The idea of an equal citizenship or nationhood propelled by liberal imperial ideology was abandoned in favour of a more culturalist view, as Mantena explains in “Alibis of Empire”. In that body of work, Mantena explain that the prior universalist policy echoes that of a liberal imperial ideology, whereby values such as equalities or any that would justify the presence of the colonial empire as a civilizing force. Mantena, Alibis of Empire, 2 However, after the disruption of the British colonial rule due to the Sepoy mutiny in British India, this was abandoned in favour of a more traditionally-oriented culturalist views. Mantena, Alibis of Empire, 5 Mantena explained that this culturalist stance manifested itself in the way the British reconstructed the imperial order in India, whereby a more conservative line was adopted to adhere, and appeal to the “tradition of the native society”. Ibid The usage of the word “native” in Mantena's argument in British method of imperial reconstruction in India serves as an indicator of the trajectory of British imperial policy. Similar policy can be seen to be adopted less than a century later in Malaya, where the British colonial administration yielded to traditional force and shifted their initial liberal imperial ideology (e.g. through equal and common citizenship) for a more traditionally oriented policies geared towards maintaining the status quo of the native of Malaya - the Malays.

2.2 The People's Nation?

The reconstitution of colonial rule, which was the main objective of the British administration serve as a catalyst for the formation of Malay nationhood, which renders it relevant to this thesis. As we've established in the previous chapter, the idea of nationhood and Malay “special rights” was strongly linked to the common citizenship policy of the Malayan Union. The same still applies and firmly implanted in the minds of the people, particularly among the Malay community. The British administration attempt to create a common nation i.e. the Malayan nation through its Common Citizenship policy conveyed a message to the population that the common citizenship has the ability to level the playing field, stripping the Malay of their distinct national traits and privilege accorded to their nation. TNA: FCO 141/7427, f. Official Statement on Malayan Union Citizenship It is this particular policy in the Malayan Union that serve as the downfall of British attempt at reconstruction of its colonial rule in Malaya.

As a result, almost immediately after the establishment of the Malayan Union, the British administration realized that it has failed to achieve what it was meant to do i.e. effective colonial rule reconstruction in Malaya. To pacify the resistance to its plan of reconstituting colonial rule in the peninsula, it proposed a revised version of the Malayan Union constitution, which would involve the Malayan population, unlike the way the Malayan Union was conceived.

In June 1946, representatives from the British Administration in Malaya, the Malay rulers and delegates from UMNO sat down to draft and negotiate a newly revised constitutional proposal for Malaya. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Malaya's Constitution, p. 263 This working committee on the newly conceived constitutional proposal concluded on the 20^th November the same year and was made public and the British administration announced that it is willing to received feedback on the new proposal. The main terms of the new proposal are as follows;

i) The Malayan Union were to be replaced by a Federation of Malaya with power reserved to the King [of England] to admit any other territory (referring to Singapore) TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Malaya's Constitution, p. 264

ii) Executive and Legislative councils were to be established with the [British] High Commissioner as President and 14 official and 34 unofficial selected members (with latter revision increasing it to 75 members) - with 80% of the council being consisted of Malay representatives Ibid TNA: CO 537/2146, f. Public Relations Singapore Press Release, p. 57

iii) Automatic acquisition of citizenship will be granted to a “Malay” person born in the Malay states. Non-Malays will only qualify for automatic acquisition granted that both of their parents were either born or have been residents of relevant territories for no less than 15 years. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 12

iv) Common citizenship, or citizenship through acquisition, enabling members of society to exercise equal political rights. The acquisition will be made available to those who did not qualify for automatic acquisition of citizenship considering they fulfill certain requirements. TNA: CO 537/2146, f. Public Relations Singapore Press Release, p. 57

Upon being made aware of these revisions, organisations consisting of multiple races residing in the Malay peninsula submitted their suggestions, with most of them being about the citizenship policies. As previously mentioned, in the Malayan Union the Citizenship policy was made as a tool to create a unified Malayan nation, thus equating nationality with citizenhood. With the backlash from the Malay community, the jus soli- based citizenship was scraped off in favour of a more stringent procedure of becoming citizens, whereby it is based on loyalty and few requirements that should be fulfilled. This particular policy became a point of contention for both Malays and non - Malay community. According to the detailed memorandum submitted by the Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce of Malaya (ACCCM), a suggestion was made to model the Malayan constitution on the one adopted by Ceylon, another British colony. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 1 The organization implied that the multicultural composition of Ceylon serves as a suitable model for Malaya to emulate, particularly the elimination of discrimination on the basis of particular traits such as religion or the community that the people belong to. Ibid The ACCCM specifically state that the constitution should not “confer privilege to one group and deny it to others” on basis of aforementioned traits. Ibid This was further reinforced with a criticism on British pro-Malay policy, which translated into an unfairness on the behalf of the non-Malays, or in this case the Chinese community in Malaya. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 7 The citizenship policy was specifically mentioned to be “discriminatory” which would exclude the majority of Chinese in Malaya from acquiring federal citizenship. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 6 Although not explicitly stated, this is most likely referring to the requirement of acquiring the citizenship that included abandoning loyalty to another country as well as the ability to converse in Malay and/or English. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, pp. 12-13 This will be disadvantageous for non-Malay communities, particularly with the legacy of British divide et impera policy that separated sections of society, rendering communication between races at a minimum. Furthermore, the declaration of loyalty to the King of England and the Malay rulers serve as an oddity for the non-Malay community, as it implies a hierarchy in a supposedly “equal” citizenship policy. TNA: CO 537/2146, f. Public Relations Singapore Press Release, p. 57 In addition, the “privilege” implied in the same memorandum was also referring to the significant role of the Conference of Rulers, which consist of the Malay rulers, in the legislative procedures of the future Federation of Malaya. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 6 The main argument of the ACCCM criticism on the revised proposal reflects the interest of the Chinese community, which is expected due to the membership of this organization that is reflected in its name. Their sentiments pertaining to the citizenship acquisition process within revised proposal was also shared by other organisations such as the Assembly of 108 organisations in Perak, Malayan Democratic Union, All Malaya Council of Joint Action(AMCJA) and Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (PUTERA). TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Malaya's Constitution, pp. 263-265 All these organisations were critical of the newly revised citizenship policy, which they deemed to be disadvantageous to the non-Malay community.

With regards to these correspondences, a pattern emerges. The non-Malay community regards citizenship to be separate from nationality. This sentiment is echoed explicitly by the Assembly of the Organisations in Perak, as well as implicitly mentioned by the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) in their letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Arthur Creech Jones. TNA: CO 537/2146, f. Malayan Democratic Union, pp. 149-150 The non-Malay community views citizenship to be a legal means of exercising their basic “civic and political rights” instead of an affirmation of a membership into a nation and any privilege accorded to said nation. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 5 However, this sentiment is not shared by the Malay community. According to the correspondences sent from the Malay-dominated organisations such as the Malay Society of Great Britain and the Malay Students' Aid Organisation Malaya, legal issues within the constitution was viewed to be encroaching within their rights to nationhood. Legislative bodies and citizenship acquisition were viewed to be means of preserving and protecting rights and privileges of the Malay nation. In at least two separate correspondences, the word “indigenous” was used to justify the Malay claim to political rights and privileges in the new federation. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum of the Malay Students' Aid Organisation Malaya, p. 2 This entitlement serves as a point of contention due to the muddling of the line separating citizenhood from nationality within the Malay community. Similar entitlement is apparent in both correspondences whereby the submission of the revised proposal to be criticized was deemed inappropriate as it encroached on the rights of the Malay people to decide the fate of the Federation of Malaya. TNA CO 537/2145, p. 273 Here lies the crux of the contested citizenship policy; the Malay definition of nationhood being tied to citizenhood, and citizenhood being tied to political privilege. The Malay community in this sense, constructed a community i.e. a nation imagined through the bond of nationality with rights, which manifested itself legally through citizenhood.

The aforementioned political privilege brought upon by the acquisition of citizenship manifested itself in representation within the legislative branch of governance. This resulted in an almost unanimous criticism from both sides i.e. Malay and non-Malay communities pertaining to the legislative procedures of the future Federation of Malaya. Among the contested issues is the representation of the respective communities in the Legislative Council responsible for law-making process in Malaya. From the memorandum sent by the ACCCM, there is a disproportionate number of representatives from the non-Malay community within the council, with only 20% of the total seats in the Legislative Council allocated to them despite having make up some 50% of the population in the Malay Peninsula.TNA: CO 537/ 2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 9 Another criticism would be with regards to the role of the Conference of Rulers, which consists of the Malay rulers, within the law-making process. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 6 The Malay Rulers, co-joint with the British sovereign has the power to approve any future amendments to the country's legislation. This placed the non-Malay community at a disadvantage, which explains the criticism it drew, since the highest echelon of power consisted of those representing British and Malay interests while any representation from the non-Malay community remained absent. On the contrary, correspondences from the ACCCM maintained the right, or entitlement of the Malay people to be granted “special position” and to have the British “safeguard” their “vital interest” in the Malay peninsula. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 15 This disclaimer at the end of the ACCCM memorandum, as well as other non-Malay organisations indicated that the demand from the non-Malay community for equality in exercising their political rights via acquisition of citizenship is separate from the rights of the Malays as the “native” or “indigenous” population of Malaya. The factions within the population again emerged due to the fact that while one side view nationality to be independent from citizenhood, the other viewed the two to be complementary.

Nation in itself is a contested concept. From 1946-1948, the state of the Malay nation is best approached using the idea of nationalism as a “political movement that seeks autonomy”, which implied that nation is a political entity. Breuilly, The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, 150 The politicisation of nationhood is at the centre of the nation-building and state-building process in 1946-1948. This politicisation also spilt over into legal means of realizing the construction of a community imagined by one section of the population into being. In the case of the Federation of Malaya 1948, the revised constitutional proposal act as a medium to realising the Malay vision of what their nation is, as well as which rights, they should be accorded to. The legal medium is crucial due to the contested issue of what privilege means to different community. In all the correspondences, the non-Malay community and the organisations they belonged into acknowledge the fact that the Malay should be given privileges. TNA: CO 537/2145, f. Memorandum on the Revised Constitutional Proposals for Malaya, p. 15 However, the elaboration of this special considerations was more akin to a form of affirmative action meant to uplift the Malay community, mainly in the economic sphere. Ibid This attaches the notion that such privilege should be temporary in nature and will be abolished once the country's socio-economic structure became more egalitarian , which explains their criticism on a system that appears to enforce a more permanent pro-Malay policy. This puts the legal system at the heart of the construction of the Malay nation, whereby not only it established a criterion for a nation but reinforces the privilege that should be accorded to the said nation.

The use of legal means to legitimise Malay nationhood is crucial due to the sovereignty, or lack thereof of Malaya, as Malaya at that time was still a British colony. Therefore, the manifestation of the Malay community's imagined community into reality lies at the hand of the British colonial administration. The decision-making process took the correspondences into account, not in terms of their content but of the source of the criticisms. Among the most prominent critics of the revised constitutional proposal were AMCJA, PUTERA and MDU.

They suggested a more equal representation within the Federation, as well as adhering to the British intended Common Citizenship Policy. However, their version was rejected due to their “left-wing” tendencies, as stated by the Governor of the then defunct Malayan Union, Sir Edward Gent in a secret telegram to the Secretary State of the Colonies, which was also referred to the Governor General of British Crown Colony of Malaya and Singapore. The National Archives of the UK (TNA): CO 537/2147, f. Savingram, p. 63 This particular point was important due to the prior encounter with the MCP shortly after the Japanese surrendered in 1945. To recap, Malaya was in chaos when the British Military Administration re-colonised the Peninsula and the then Malayan Union was established to restore order, which is what the revised proposal continues to aim to do. The negative encounter with the Communist elements was a possible contributing factor for any criticism or suggestions from left-wing associated organisations to be overlooked or dismissed by the British administration. According to the same telegram by Gent, any amendments or revision that would take years to complete would add on “uncertainty”, which would defeat the purpose of the Federation in the first place. TNA: CO 537/2147, f. No. 124 in Secret 473/a/46 Vol III, p. 69

Despite acknowledging the criticisms, the British administration went on to ratify the revised proposals in the UK-Malay States Agreement of 1948. This ratification cemented the notion of Malay nationhood and the “special rights” accorded to it. The constitution listed the qualifying features of a “Malay”, as well as the “special rights” that came along. As of 1948, a Malay is defined as a person who;

i) Habitually speaks the Malay language

ii) Professes the Malay religion

iii) Conforms to Malay custom The National Archives of the UK (TNA): DO 118/298, p. 41

Throughout the entire constitution, only the definition of a Malay (and not of other community) was provided, and the implication was obvious as a benchmark of privilege of citizenship. Ibid The definition of this nation was preceded with the automatic acquisition of citizenship for a subject of a Malay ruler, which a Malay was automatically included into.

At this point, it is apparent that privilege or “special rights” was imbued within the category of the Malay nation, whereby membership to this nation enables a person to acquire the Federal Citizenship which would in turn grants them the ability to exercise political rights in the Federation of Malaya.

2.3 Whose Imagined Nation?

Echoing Chatterjee's dialogue with Anderson's “imagined community”, the issue of whose imagined nation? definitely applies to the construction of Malay nationhood as well as the “special rights” accorded to it. In the evolution of Malay nationhood and the “special rights” accorded to it, it appears that the initial stage i.e. pre-Japanese invasion was dominated by the British imagination of what a nation should look like. The categorization of Malays into a community based on economic and bureaucratic function serves as a manifestation of British colonial interests in the region. The Malays who were members of said category was left out of its construction, with that particular notion of nation being enforced onto them. However, the category also helped distinguish the Malays from their non-Malay counterparts, which aided the distribution of certain rights. Again, the bureaucratic function of nation came into play, whereby only members of the nation will be accorded with certain rights. As seen in the previous chapter, those rights were political and economic in nature.

This designation and dynamic of between nationhood and “special rights” were overturned with Malayan Union, that removed all distinction between the communities in favour of more liberal policies. However, the removal of distinction via citizenship created a socially constructed notion of citizenhood as a replacement or mutually interchangeable concept with nationality, which led us to the currently contested issue of the revised proposal in 1946-1948. This point of construction of Malay nationhood along with the determination of “special rights” to be accorded to the Malay involved more than just the colonial administration. At this point, the British policy of appeasing a section of society to hinder them from running into the arms of anti-British extremist groups was no longer an option. Both Malay and non-Malay community have mobilized politically, and both have the ability to challenge British colonial reconstruction through their respective political movements. The British choice to ratify a rather pro-Malay policies serves as a contradiction of its intended policy in Malaya. This decision placed those involved with drafting the revised proposals directly at the helm of the nation-building process and designation of “special rights” of the Malay people.

The revised proposal that was eventually ratified into the UK-Malay states Agreement of 1948 was secretly negotiated between UMNO, the Malay Rulers and representative of the British colonial administration. The terms of the agreement were in accordance of the values and “imagination” of the parties involved. The rights bestowed upon the Malay rulers and UMNO can also be a manifestation of a privilege imbued within the British colonial administration. The way the British administration actually gathered the Malay elites to enter into a secret negotiation suggested that there was already a pre-existing notion of nationhood linked with “special rights”, which served as a basis of British course of action pertaining to the nation-building process. Furthermore, the ratification of the proposal was made in the form of an agreement signed only between the British Governor for Malayan Union, Sir Edward Gent and the Malay rulers, as made apparent in the final page whereby the signature and the seals only consisted of the aforementioned parties. Regardless of how the revised proposal was submitted for the Malayan population to review, the eventual constitution was drafted, negotiated and agreed upon only by the British colonial administration and the Malay elites.

As we've established, the revised proposal containing the citizenship policy was crucial in the nation-building process as well as the designation of Malay “special rights”. Despite the important role played by the British colonial administration, I argue that it was the Malay rulers and UMNO that had the most important role in constructing the concept of a Malay nation and determining which “special rights” should be accorded to the Malays in Malaya. The British acts as an enabler when they placed the Malay rulers and UMNO in a bargaining position, when the real construction of nation was a projection of the “imagination” of the Malay elites. Therefore, in 1948, the Malay nation and the “special rights” accorded to it was no longer a result of an imposed “imagined community” but of an autonomous one constructed by the elites of the members of said nation.

2.4 Concluding remarks

By 1948, the parameters of the Malay nation evolved from the imposed parameters set by the British in the form of the Malayan nation. Instead, the definition of a member of the Malay nation went back to match its form when it was still an “ethnie” or a proto-nation, where its customs, religion and linguistic features were the determinant of membership to the nation. The evolution or perhaps the devolution of the superficial traits of the nation was followed by its special rights, which followed similar devolutionary trajectory of returning to the pre-World War II forms, where the Malays were given special status in politics and economic shares in the Malay peninsula.

However, the more significant evolutionary trend lies not in the change in the parameters of the Malay nation and its special rights, but in terms of the mechanism that lies behind these shifts in parameters. These concepts have evolved beyond being defined merely by superficial traits. Instead, a move towards autonomous construction of the Malay nation was continued from the ones started in 1946. This newfound autonomy in shaping the trajectory of its nationhood and “special rights” evolved to include institutionalization and officialization of the defining features of a Malay and the “special rights” demanded for those belonging to this category. This was done through the participation of more actors instead of the British colonial force and the Malay ruling elites in determining how the nation should be defined. Through the correspondences, it can be seen how many organizations, both political and apolitical (if there is such a thing) were mobilizing and responding to the revised constitution that will make up the future constitution for the Federation of Malaya 1948. This mass mobilisation of these organisations, along with their input suggest a new evolutionary phase in the construction of nationhood in Malaya.

In relation to active actors in the construction of Malay nationhood and its special rights, although the Malay rulers did play an important role, particularly in negotiating a new amended constitution for the Federation of Malaya in 1948, their role has diminished rather significantly in 1948, with political party such as UMNO taking the lead in mobilizing the Malay population. This diminishing role would also eventually sever the bond that would previously link the Malay identity with the subjecthood to the Malay sultans. With this shift in the relationship between nationhood, special rights and subjecthood, the dynamic of Malayan political scene in 1948 became almost unrecognisable compared to 1945, when the British began their imperial and colonial reconstruction project.

The construction of Malay nationhood has to be analysed alongside the special rights accorded to it, as it adds depth in providing the justification of the need for distinguishing features in between nations. As we've established before, the demand for a distinct Malay nationhood was tied to the “special rights” that they claimed that they are entitled to as an “indigenous” people of Malaya. The transitional time period between 1946-1948 serves as a crucial turning point in determining the trajectory of Malay nationhood and Malay “special rights” in the Malay peninsula as it specifically provide a definition of a [Malay] nation, which would later serve as a foundation for the current Malaysian Constitution that came into being in 1957.

Conclusion

This thesis sets out to chart the progression and evolution of Malay nationhood and the Malay “special rights”. In order to do so, this entire thesis has been geared towards answering the research questions that has been established earlier on in the Introduction. The entire thesis has revolved around not only the change in the parameters defining the Malay nation and their “special rights” but also of the justification and historical significance of each steps of those progression. In most of the analyses, the approaches revolve around the concept of imperial reconstruction of colonial rule, where in this case would involve the British overseas empire in the Malay peninsula. To reiterate, this research aims to answer the following questions;

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?

Nationhood and “Special Rights”

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

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

As suggested by the first two research questions, the relationship between Malay nationhood and “special rights” is one of the main focus of this research. Throughout this paper, the main arguments have been geared towards determining and charting the shift in the parameters of the Malay nation, with “special rights” seemingly taking a back seat. However, “special rights” occupy the same space as those parameters that determined the characteristics of Malay nationhood and this is reflected in the type of relationship between the two.

At first glance, “special rights” and Malay nationhood appears to have a causal-effect relationship, where the need for the distinction of the category of the Malay nation created the demand for the “special rights” to act as that distinctive barrier. This was explained through the adoption of Kymlicka's definition of “external protection” as part of the definition for Malay “special rights”. According to Kymlicka, “external protection” was a demand that stemmed from the need of a group to “protect its distinct existence and identity”. Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship, 36 This can be seen in the case of the Malay nation, particularly in 1946 after the establishment of the Malayan Union and the Common Citizenship policy, where the distinction between its identity with the non-Malays was being diminished. However, the causal-effect relationship seems too reductionist to explain the more complex pre-existing dynamic between the Malay nation and its special rights. Admittedly, the “special rights”, per Kymlicka's definition, seems to only exist after there was a threat to the distinctiveness of the Malay identity, which propelled the Malay population, represented by the pro-Malay political parties and the Malay rulers, to demand for special provision to protect said identity. However, from the sources, the set of “special rights” such as political and economic privilege granted to the Malay community have existed prior to the mobilisation of the Malays demanding for those special provisions. Instead of a causal-effect relationship, the arguments in this paper seems to lean towards “special rights” and Malay nationhood having more of a symbiotic relationship.

Symbiosis in this instance was taken from a biological analogy, where two organisms interact with one another simultaneously. In the case of the Malay nation and “special rights”, it appears that the two were mutually dependent on one another. Instead of one being the cause of the other, they both exist simultaneously and were significant to one another. This can be seen in two instances and the interaction between these two instances went on to show how dependent nationhood and “special rights” are in the case of Malaya.

First, the granting of “special rights” is conditional, whereby only those belonging to the Malay nation were entitled to them. Second, at the same time, the “special rights” themselves became an indicator of someone's membership to the Malay nation. In these instances, one did not come before the other. Instead, they exist simultaneously in a complementary manner. However, it is also too simplistic to merely conclude the dynamic of the relationship between “special rights” and Malay nationhood to be one of symbiosis. In order to understand how the dynamic of this relationship came to be developed, one must look back into the relationship between the Malay nation with the Malay rulers. In this thesis, I have established that the bond of subjecthood between the Malay nation and the Malay rulers serves as a crucial determining trait of membership to the nation. Any shift in ideology or traits initiated by the Malay rulers would eventually lead to a society-wide change, such as shown with the case of the shift of religious beliefs of the Malays in the 15^th century, where the conversion of the rulers from the Malacca Sultanate led to the Malay subjects following suit. Leyden, Malay Annals, 92-93 This made the royal institution a rather representative landmark of the traits that would be pass down to the Malays as a collective, Similarly, with the endowment of the “special rights” to the Malay rulers, the privileges that came along were assumed to trickle down to the Malay subjects. This was shown in the sources through the economic benefits reaped by the Malay population despite their reluctance to participate in the rubber industry, as well as disproportionate contribution to the economy. TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 8 As it was shown that the Malay rulers were advocating for Malay interests, any privileges accorded to this elite group would be passed down, albeit not in its entirety to the Malays as a collective.

As one of the parameters of nationhood for the Malays include bureaucratic function, the determining trait of a Malay would be those who were subjects of the Malay rulers. In this sense, the identity of a Malay is constantly tied to their subjecthood to the Malay rulers and along with it, any characteristics of the rulers themselves. This includes faith, customs, language and even the rights accorded to them. Therefore, when I claim that “special rights” were a defining trait of the Malay nation, it was done so with regards to the rights belonging to an institution that is associated with defining the Malay nation itself. Admittedly, this makes the relationship rather complicated, as the real symbiotic relationship was actually between the Malay rulers and the Malay nation, and not with “special rights”.

That being said, the entire dynamic of this relationship is argued to be a colonial construct. Throughout this thesis, the process of categorisation of nationhood, along with determining parameters of said categories were done in the interest of the British colonial empire. This relationship between “special rights” and nationhood, or between the Malay nation with the Malay rulers were established in order to serve a colonial bureaucratic function. As all the primary sources used in this thesis were produced by the British authorities, the language used in these sources were representatives of the role that British allocated to the categories that they created. In any of the census conducted or any discussion of the Malay community, no specifications were allocated to the Malays except for their geographic location. There were no specific mention of differentiation of the socio-economic status or religion for the Malays. Instead, they were grouped as a collective, with a generalised parameter of nationhood based on colonially established traits meant to serve their bureaucratic function in the colony. However, a specific defining characteristic that always came up in the discussion of the Malays is their subjecthood and bond to the Malay rulers. This constant association made the subjecthood to the Malay rulers an identifier and representation for the Malay nation as a whole, or at least as perceived from the British bureaucratic lens. This association also serves to simplify the categorisation process as it eliminates numerous sub-categories or overlapping categories, that could hinder colonial policy-making.

Therefore, in order to answer the first two research questions stated above, one needs to look into the “special rights” and Malay nation not as independent entities mutually exclusive of one another, but as concepts that are intertwined, bound by the bureaucratic function they serve, as well as the subjecthood to the Malay rulers that binds them to one another. The arguments stated above mainly deals with the first research question pertaining to the dynamic of the relationship between Malay nationhood and “special rights”. However, the key to answering the second question i.e. to identify specific rights that were significant in the dynamic of this relationship is through further examination of what rights were passed down from the Malay rulers to the Malay community. As these rights and association to the Malay nation were colonially constructed, the perception of significance could be identified through the way these rights were recorded in the sources. From the sources, either from the British authority or from the Malayan public, two types of privilege or “special rights” were constantly being discussed. These two “special rights” pertain to exclusive political participation and the economic benefits accorded to the Malay community. Again, these rights were initially accorded to the Malay rulers and trickled down to the Malay population through pro-Malay policies in the states ruled by these rulers. This conclusion may appear to be too obvious or simplistic, however this deduction was derived from the dynamic of the relationship that has been established between the Malay rulers, the Malay nation and the “special rights”. Once the dynamic and type of the relationship have been identified, any further fact-based questions could be resolved simply by taking a look at this relationship.

In summary, the relationship between the “special rights” with Malay nationhood could only be understood in-depth with the inclusion of the bond of subjecthood to the Malay ruler. In addition, this relationship should also be viewed from the perspective of the colonially constructed bureaucratic function in order to understand the way it works. This combination of bureaucratic function, nationhood and “special rights” also helps justify the decision to discuss Malay nationhood in tandem with “special rights” instead of segregating them into separate discussions. For this reason, whenever “special rights” of the Malays were to be discussed, it has to be so within the context of its relationship to the parameters that defined the Malay nation, as well as the circumstances of it being categorised as such i.e. as “special rights” instead of the mere classification of rights.