The current discourse of ‘Malays being pendatang’ initially prompted me to write a letter in which I hoped to provide a researched and balanced historical overview.
Since RPK has written two articles on the subject, I shall refrain from doing so. In view of his framing of his dialectic that Malays are not pendatangs on the basis of historical timeline, I am in agreement with him.
There is too much research and information that covers the significantly heterogeneity of the category ‘Malay’ that it will be a futile effort to write it all, so what I would like to add briefly is similar in theme to my previous letter; that any assertion of ancestral, racial or cultural superiority is a social construct that should be done away with if we are all really serious about nation-building.
This transcends any pendatang or no-pendatang discourse.
The readership now knows that Malay as a language has its roots as an Austronesian language, with heavily borrowed Sanskirt words, and was spoken and written in Old Malay in the form of Jawi. In fact the word ‘Bahasa’ is a Sanskirt word. (Pollock 1998; Day 2002) We should also note that this has existed since the Sri Vijaya empire, which is Indian in origin. (Milner 2011) Note that Old Malay here in the form of Jawi is not something that belongs to what our modern concept of Malay is, nor is it an Islamic language. It has part of its roots in Hinduism and is Indianized.
To trace the Austronesian speakers, we know that their origins in our geographical region can be traced back to their colonization of the Malay Archipelago from southern China and Taiwan. (Collins 1998; Bulbeck 2004)
Additionally, many of the terms and words that are used in the language heavily references Indian concepts and vocabulary, especially about worship, potions, curses, and the afterlife. (Wheatley 1966; Coedes 1968, p81; Milner 2011)
1. So, from a language point of view, we have Old Malay/Jawi which isn’t Islamic in origin, that is heavily influenced by Sanskrit, and has a significant word-concept association based on Hindu cosmology. Additionally, with the Austronesians coming from China and Taiwan, we can assume that the current form of Malay as a tool of constituting the Malay category is syncretic and has certain roots in the other ethnic groups comprising modern Malaysia. Why then the 1930s slogan of Hidup Bahasa! Hidup Bangsa! (Hooker 2000) that has today been equated to be integral to Malayness and to describe the race itself. (Milner 2011)
When Sri Vijaya emerged as an empire in the late 7th century, this saw a mass migration of Sumatrans and Indians into the peninsula (Cortesao 1990; Milner 2011). In later centuries, there have been reports by Arab traders that ‘Kalah’ (believed to be in South Kedah) on the Peninsula are ‘inhabited by Indians’ as well as ‘Chinese’, as settlers to the region. (Tibbetts 1979; Jacq-Hergoualc’h 2001)
Additionally, in the fluid ‘social organization’ that was typified by the ruler-subject kerajaan in the later centuries post-Sri Vijaya, there was no segregation by the raja/maharajah/sultan as to ethnicity or descend but rather, propensity for work – all were known as subjects to the area’s Raja/Sultan, (Jawi Peranakan 26 September 1887; Dumont 1992; King 1993; Milner 2011) and these included people whom we now term Dayaks, Bataks, Ibans, among others. (Rousseau 1990) As we can see, unlike the ethnic currents today, the ‘Malays’ of old had a relative lack of concern about descent. (Bellwood 1985; Macknight 1986; Fox 2006)
Further, in an anecdote related in Hikayat Hang Tuah, the people of Melaka identified themselves to Hang Tuah as ‘hybrid Malays’. (Md. Salleh Yaapar 2005) Let us remember the significance of Hikayat Hang Tuah as a central text to Malay culture and literature, and the assertion of the Melaka sultanate as the golden age of the Malays.
2. As a racial category, ‘Malay’ has roots in Malay, Indian, Chinese, Arab, and Orang Asli categories. Why are we quibbling over racial purity? How more Malaysian can the category be? Similarly, the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia have no such claims to racial purity.
From an aesthetic or visual manifestation of ‘culture’, the wakaf design that is vernacularly Malay in origin, can be attributed to the Indic (Indian) element that represents ‘Mount Meru’ (Bosch 1960, p95-98) going back to the Indianization of the Malay Archipelago during the Sri Vijaya period; Mount Meru being the axis of the universe in classical Indian thought. Many originally Indian and Chinese zoomorphic motifs that typified traditional Malay carvings and architecture have also been changed to floral and plant-based designs after Islamic consciousness. It has also been well documented that many of the early Malay architectural forms are derivatives of architecture from Chinese, Indian, and Arab concepts.
It is also now commonly known that cultural practices such as cukur jambul and bersanding as it is practised, are essentially Hindu practices based on Hindu devotional beliefs that in its early days saw the couple seated on a dais with the motif of Mount Meru. (Nagata 1974; Karim 1992; Peletz 1997)
3. What is culture? With a wide range of influences from all communities inhabiting Malaysia, isn’t cultural purity an oxymoron?
The spread of Islam from the 13th – 14th centuries in the Peninsula and Sumatra has been attributed in large part to the Indian polities rather than the Middle Eastern traders as has been commonly thought. (Wheatley 1966; Bellina and Glover 2004; Milner 2011)
In the Islamic Museum in Kuala Lumpur (when I checked in 2003), there is also an exhibit that bears a plaque that communicates it is believed it was not the Arab traders that first brought Islam to the Melaka Sultanate but the Chinese traders. Further to this, one of the first conversions to Islam in Melaka was by the Sultan who was influenced by a Moorish Sufi (Moors originate from Africa who then controlled Spain). (Milner 2011)
4. What is this Melayu-Muslim? Is there a need for another social construction to further try and hem in what it means to be Malay?
Let us not be carried away by a presumed intent for me to offend or insult. I am merely trying to convey several points that I have highlighted above that stand in the way of Malaysia’s nation-building efforts.
Late in the 19th century, one of the observations that Sir Frank Swettenham made of the Malays was that they were “… extraordinarily sensitive in regard to any real or fancied insult.” (1907, p134-143; 1901) Governor Raffles noted that they were “alive to insult” (1992, p236). Chinese were also observed to be “hicksters” and “tricksters”.
Let’s move beyond that, as has oft been proven by later writers who debunk such stereotypical traits. We are each individuals with the same set of negativities and strengths. Those observations were made almost a century ago – have we not evolved as peoples? Why do we still insist on reconstituting the idea of race to these stereotypes?
While I should probably write a 4-parter of sorts on this topic providing more depth per-category, I think it is time we all did more research instead of just mouthing off – the references I provided are explicitly for that reason. This is especially pertinent if we want to contribute positively to the discourse at hand with any degree of sincerity towards a Malaysia that was envisioned at the time of our Independence.
Each of our communities has roots in many diverse influences that make any claims to cultural or racial purity a sham.
It’s about time we all stop with the Malay-nationalist/Chinese-nationalist/Indian-nationalist projects and truly start with the Malaysian Project.
P.s. Due to time constraints, the list below is not the complete bibliography. Please do request if you really want the full bib list.
Bulbeck, D. (2004). ‘Indigenious Traditions and Exogenous Influences in the Early History of Peninsula Malaysia’, in Glover and Bellwood (eds), Southeast Asia, 314-336.
Coedes, G. (1968). The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: East-West Center Press.
Cortesao, A. (ed.) (1990). The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
Collins, J. (1998). Malay, World Language: A Short History. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Day, T. (2002). Fluid Iron: State Formation in South-east Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Dumont, L. (1992). Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. London: University of Chicago Press.
Hooker, V. (2000). Writing a New Society: Social Change through the Novel in Malay. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
King, V. (1979). Ethnic Classification and Ethnic Relations: A Borneo Case Study. Hull: University of Hull.
Pollock, S. (1998). The Cosmopolitan Vernacular. JAS, 57, 1, 6-37.
Milner, A. (2011). The Malays. Sussex : Blackwell.
Swettenham, Frank. (1901) The Real Malay: Pen Pictures. London : John Lane.
Swettenham, Frank. (1907) British Malaya. London: John Lane/Bodley Hade.
Tibbetts, G. (1979). A Study of the Arabic Texts containing Material on South-East Asia. Leiden: Brill.
Jacq-Hergoualc’h, M. (2001) The Malay Peninsula: Crossroads of the Maritime Silk-Road (100BC-1300AD). Boston: Brill.
Wheatley, P. (1966). The Golden Khersonese. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment