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

The Role of Colonial and Imperial Reconstruction

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

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

This entire research was framed with the imperial and colonial reconstruction perspective in mind. The role of the British colonial empire, particularly with regards to their reconstruction effort after the re-occupation of Malaya has shaped the way nationhood and “special rights” evolved in the Malay peninsula. In general, it has always been acknowledged that the British colonial empire played a role in the administration of the population, such as the categorization of ethnic communities into specific groups and differentiation of rights granted to each group, respectively. However, this role is further highlighted with the re-occupation of Malaya, as it highlights how involved was the British Empire in the matters of Malay nation-building, as well as with regards to Malay “special rights”. This can be seen in the way the trajectory of the categorisation of the Malay nation significantly shifted with the shift in the power dynamics involved in the imperial and colonial reconstruction process after the Second World War. Any colonial policies with regards to the Malay nation-building were implemented in the interest of the colonial reconstructive project in Malaya. This interest was either reflected through the elimination of threats towards the British rule or by garnering support. The pattern of this policy-making process seems to favour appeasing the most powerful section of the society. This is apparent in the way the British support shifted from legislating rights to serve the Malay elites prior to 1941 to developing the Common Citizenship Policy to appease the Chinese community after the re-occupation of Malaya. Those two sections of society, at the time when they were supported by the British colonial administration, were those who yielded most power, be it in terms of support or threat towards the British rule. This shifting support on different section of society went on through three major changes from 1946-1948, with the British settling on appeasing the Malay demands, thus ensuring support for British presence for another 9 years in Malaya before it was given independence on the 31^st August 1957.

Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, the British Colonial Empire in Malaya had complete autonomy over the process of categorisation of nation, with no need for consideration of demands from the population. However, the Japanese occupation acted as a disruption to this status quo. By the time the British colonial force returns to Malaya, there were already a mass mobilisation of a paramilitary movement that was left-wing and anti-imperialist in the form of the Malayan Communist Party. In addition, the rise of the Malayan Communist Party also created chaos heading in the direction of a civil war between the Malays and the Chinese in Malaya, which posed a threat for a smooth transition for the re-occupying force. Compared to its pre-World War II position, the British colonial empire now finds itself needing to take the demands of certain sections of society into consideration. This led to the establishment of the Malayan Union and the implementation of the Common Citizenship policy, that saw the non-Malay communities, which includes the Chinese, to be eligible for rights and privileges previously reserved only for the Malays.

Instead of returning to the status quo of allying itself with the Malay rulers for the support of its colonial rule, the British found themselves in need of an appeasement policy to hinder the further deterioration of its relationship with the non-Malay community in Malaya, particularly with regards to the Chinese. It was acknowledged that the social base of the Malayan Communist Party consisted mainly of the working class as well as the intellectuals from the Chinese community. Although the Malays did outnumber the Chinese in the years following the Malayan re-occupation, the marginal difference in population were only at 252, 629. TNA: CO 273/675/11, f. Future Constitution for Malay Peninsula, 10 In addition, the Malayan Communist Party was well armed, courtesy of their cooperation with the British Empire during the anti-Japanese campaign in Malaya throughout the years of the Japanese occupation. Therefore, when the British returned to Malaya, the power dynamic has shifted, where the Chinese community, due to their perceived risk of defection into the Malayan Communist Party became the kingmakers of Malaya. Their loyalty has the potential to make or break the British project of reconstructing their rule in the Malay peninsula. However, the trajectory of the nation-building policies changed again right after the establishment of the Malayan Union, with the mass political mobilization of the Malay community, led by the Malay elites and the Malay rulers, which saw another shift in the power dynamics in the Malay peninsula. This mass mobilization was perceived as another threat, albeit of a different kind from the threat posed by the Malayan Communist Party, to the smooth transition of power into British rule in Malaya. At this point, the British colonial administration was faced with a dilemma in choosing which side to appease in order to ensure the success of the reconstruction of its colonial rule. The British however opted to appease the Malay demands, first to regain their support and second, to prevent any further radicalisation of the Malay nationalist movement. Although the majority of the Malay population, or at least the Malay elites were supportive of the British rule, the events that led to the establishment of the Malayan Union, particularly with regards to the mistreatment of the Malay rulers by Sir Harold MacMichael posed a threat of the Malays becoming anti-British. After all, there was a precedence of set by the KMM, a left-wing, anti-British organisation that cooperated with the Japanese in ousting the British colonial force in 1941. This historic precedence, along with the mass political mobilization of the Malays in protest over the Common Citizenship Policy and the Malayan Union put the Malays in a better bargaining position than their Chinese counterpart, thus prompting a shift in policy favouring the Malays. However, this policy shift was conducted in a less drastic manner than the one conducted right after the British returned to Malaya. This led to a juggling act, with the British colonial administration trying to appease, or at least appear to be considerate to as many sections of the society as possible. As a result, the decision-making process pertaining to the policies were made public, with the public having a say in the revision of the constitution of the Malayan Union. However, this appears to be a mere formality as shown in Chapter 2, where it appears that the British administration had already made their mind up with regards to its appeasement policy. Nevertheless, the need to open up the issue of the revised constitution for the future Federation of Malaya 1948 indicated a diminishing significance of the role of the British Empire as the main driver behind the construction of the Malay nationhood and its special rights. Admittedly, throughout the time period between 1946-1948, the British remained as the decision-maker of any of its policies in its colony in Malaya, however this role has had to be indirectly shared with the Malayan public such as the Malayan Communist Party, the Chinese Community and the Malays. Therefore, despite still dominating the process of nation-building in Malaya, the British role had diminished significantly compared to before the disruption of its colonial rule in 1941, from having complete autonomy to having to bargain for the survival of its colonial rule with the people of Malaya.

Concluding remarks

Summary

This entire thesis revolves around the two themes highlighted above, which was the relationship between Malay nationhood with “special rights” and the role of the colonial reconstruction conducted by the British Empire in 1946-1948. In order to understand the relationship between the Malay nation and its “special rights”, the discussion has to be placed within the context of the colonial reconstruction process that were taking place at the same time. This was due to the immense role played by that reconstructive process in shaping the trajectory of Malay nationhood and in deciding which “special rights” to be accorded to the Malays. The role of the British Empire is apparent through the way they handled the nation-building process, particularly after the re-occupation of Malaya via the establishment of the Malayan Union. In their attempt to appease the Chinese section of the society through the Common Citizenship Policy, the British colonial administration effectively cemented the constant association between the Malay nation and the demand for “special rights” in order to protect the distinct identity of the Malay, which was eroded through the citizenship policy. From these series of events, the British Empire emerged as the main historical actor with extremely significant role in shaping the way Malay nationhood was defined, as well as the “special rights” that were attached to it.

In addition, it is also crucial to reiterate the important role played by the British colonial administration in the categorisation of nation in Malaya. By having complete autonomy in the categorisation of nation, the British empire was responsible for the genesis of the modern Malay nation, or at least the template of it. The defining parameters set by the colonial administration went on to be revised by the Malay nationalist movement in 1946-1948 and ends up being adapted into the Federation of Malaya 1948. That being said, it would be amiss not to mention that this particular role also diminished as the Malayan population, be it Malay or non-Malay mobilized themselves politically and ended up being perceived as an important enough force to warrant a seat at the discussion table. This was particularly true with regards to the role of the Malay rulers and the Malay community in their relentless pursuit to be given the voice in the matters of their own nation-building.

In charting the evolution of the Malay nationhood as well as Malay “special rights”, these two did not undergo massive change in terms of their substance. However, it was the way it came to be constructed that evolved significantly, from the less than formal and overgeneralized categorisation of nationhood and accorded special rights in 1941, all the way to a formal institutionalized set of parameters defining the Malay nation and the special rights they were entitled to being cemented in the Federal Constitution that are still in use up to this day. That being said, the terminology of “evolution” may also come into question as the Malays eventually adopted a revised version of the parameters of nationhood and “special rights” that has been set aside earlier by their British colonial masters. In this sense, the Malay nationhood and its special rights have been shown to be more than just a static legacy of Malaya's colonial past, but a living embodiment of a colonial construction that continues to evolve and change with the passing of time. It should also be noted that due to the introduction of the Sedition Act on 1948 and Article 153 into the current Malaysian Federal Constitution, any challenge to the pre-established definition of the two concepts was made legally challenging. Therefore, at least legally, the Malay nation and its “special rights” took their final form in 1948, when their parameters were set in stone in the constitution of the Federation of Malaya 1948, which would also go on to be adopted into the current Malaysian Federal Constitution.

Further research

This research deals more than just the change in the parameters of nationhood and “special rights” as it also directed the focus into the mechanism of the way these changes occur and came into fruition. Therefore, despite the legal barrier placed in the Malaysian Federal Constitution, there are still discussions to be had pertaining to the construction of Malay nationhood and its “special rights”, especially with regards to the study of the subject through the alternative framework of imperial reconstruction instead of the mainstream national one. The inclusion of the mechanism, particularly within the imperial framework could serve as an addition to the current historiography of the study of Malay nationhood and its nationalist movement as most of the study of Malay nationhood and Malay “special rights” were conducted within the context of nationalist movements or political economy. By giving rhyme and reason to the way things were arranged in 1946-1948, a comparison can be made with the way the current form of the Malay nation is being discussed in present day Malaysia.

Further research can also be conducted by extending the temporal limit of the study of Malay nationhood, particularly with regards to 1955, 1957, 1963 and 1969 when major historical events forced the parameters of the Malay nation and the “special rights” accorded to change from what it used to be in 1948. These changes would open up more opportunities for research by not only the extension of its temporal limit but also of the inclusion of more historical actors involved in shaping the Malay nation, as opposed to only a few during the time period covered by this research. By putting the Malay nation in the lens of the studies of colonial empire the reconstruction of its rule, it is hoped that it will open up more discussion pertaining the active role played by Malaya's former colonial masters instead of being relegated to a footnote in history meant to merely provide context to the discussion.

List of Sources

Primary Sources

The National Archives of the UK. CO 273/675/11: Future policy in Malaya Constitution

The National Archives of the UK. CO 273/675/21: Future policy in Malaya: Creation of Malayan Citizenship

The National Archives of the UK. CO 537/2145: Reactions to Constitutional Proposals: Miscellaneous Correspondence Part I

The National Archives of the UK. CO 537/2146: Reactions to Constitutional Proposals: Miscellaneous Correspondence Part II

The National Archives of the UK. CO 537/2147: Reactions to Constitutional Proposals: Miscellaneous Correspondence Part III

The National Archives of the UK. DO 118/298: UK - Malay States Agreements of 1948

The National Archives of the UK. FCO 141/7427: Constitution of the Malayan Union

Bibliography

1. Akashi, Yoji. "Japanese Policy Towards the Malayan Chinese 1941-1945." Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 1, no. 2 (1970): 61-89. www.jstor.org/stable/20069873.

2. Anderson, Benedict Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991

3. Anderson, Benedict, 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): 57-73. doi:10.1353/imp.2003.0068.

4. Arkib Negara Malaysia. “Malayan Union - Teladan buat generasi kini, akan datang.” 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

5. Breuilly, John. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

6. Burbank, Jane. "An Imperial Rights Regime: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 7, no. 3 (2006): 397-431. doi:10.1353/kri.2006.0031

7. Chatterjee, Partha. Empire and Nation: Selected Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.

8. Chin, James. “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.

9. Cooper, Brian C. Decade of Change: Malaya and the Straits Settlements 1936-1945. Singapore: Graham Brash, 1998.

10. Gullick J. M. "Prelude to Merdeka: Public Administration in Malaya, 1945-57." South East Asia Research 5, no. 2 (1997): 155-173. Accessed April 26, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/23746852

11. Sundaram, Jomo. “The New Economic Policy and Interethnic Relations in Malaysia.” United Nations Research Institute of Social Development. 7, no. 9 (2004) http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpPublications)/A20E9AD6E5BA919780256B6D0057896B.

12. Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

13. Lee, Molly N. N. “Education and the State: Malaysia after the NEP.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 1, no.1 (1997): 27-40. doi:10.1080/02188799708547741.

14. Leyden, John. Malay Annals. ed. Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown, 1821.

15. Mantena Karuna. Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010.

16. Milne, R. S. “`National Ideology' and Nation-Building in Malaysia.” Asian Survey 10, no. 7 (1970): 563-73. doi:10.2307/2642955

17. Muller, Hannah Weiss. "Bonds of Belonging: Subjecthood and the British Empire." Journal of British Studies 53, no. 1 (2014): 29-58. www.jstor.org/stable/24700955.

18. Nair, Sheila. “Colonial `Others' and Nationalist Politics in Malaysia.” Akademika 54 (January 1999): 55-79 http://ejournal.ukm.my/akademika/article/view/3035

19. Smith, Anthony. National Identity. London: Penguin Books, 1991

20. Stoler, A.L. “Colonial archives and the arts of governance.” Archival Science 2, (2002) 87-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435632

21. The Guardian, “World peace at last: Japan surrenders, archive 1945,” Guardian, August 15, 1945,

22. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/15/world-peace-at-last-japan-surrenders-archive-1945

23. Ting, Helen “The Politics of National Identity in West Malaysia: Continued Mutation or Critical Transition?” Southeast Asian Studies 47, no.1(2009): 31-51.

24. http://hdl.handle.net/2433/108378

25. Winstedt, Richard. "Indian Influence in the Malay World." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 2 (1944): 186-96. www.jstor.org/stable/25221977

Размещено на Allbest.ru