ONE common mistake when we discuss historical migration to the Malay world is the claim that when someone migrated to Singapura or Malaysia, they migrated to a territory or country.
For example, when Chinese labourers migrated to Singapura, it is assumed they enjoyed individual rights as private citizens. Their only responsibility is to the territory and the laws that governed it.
As previously discussed, Singapura was not sold to the British. The island was taken through threats and intimidation.
Singapura was under the legal authority of the Sultan of Riau-Lingga.
The Malay system of migration and governance
The Malays were a very mobile nation. A Prince from Palembang would move to Bintan and Singapura and set up his royal court. The Sultan of Melaka moved to Johor. A Deli prince moved to Acheh.
Territory as of itself, was a secondary concern.
What mattered to the Malay was the society they participated in or joined. When a Malay from Pahang moved to Terengganu, what changed was not simply his location.
The main difference were his allegiance (to his new ruler) and the society he participated in. The place itself was secondary.
As Tarling noted:
What counted in Southeast Asia, sparse in population, was allegiance. Whom, rather than what, did the state comprise…What concerned a ruler was the people not the place.
The sense that the state was a geographical or locational identity was rarely strong…The place might be relatively inexact. The terms of allegiance of the people concerned would be much more precise. That was the prior consideration: where the people went, there the state went.(1998, p. 47)
Milner similarly argued that the Malay political system was based on the Sultan. Hence, the Malay word for “government” is loosely translated to “kerajaan”.
Territorial identity was a rather alien concept. Being a Singaporean, Kelantanese, Kedahan were based on the allegiance that the individual bore to his ruler and the society that he participated in. It was not based on location.
As Milner observed, “a Sultan of Trengganu, for instance, admitted to an English enquirer in 1875 that it was not known ‘where the Trengganu boundary ran’.”
What was important was allegiance. Where you are, determined your participation in the society and allegiance to the ruler. The territory itself was imprecise and secondary.
A similar standard was expected for those who migrated from outside the Malay world. The Chinese who lived in Singapura took up Malay customs and declared their loyalty to the Malay Sultan.
They did not exist independent of the Malay rulers.
Those who migrated to the society that owned the land, were subjected to the laws and customs of the society they joined.
As such, someone from China, India, Philippines, who migrated to Singapura or Perak, did not, strictly speaking…
migrate to Singapura or Perak.
What they did was to join the societies they migrated to and submit to the rulers that governed these societies.
Their migration entailed their acceptance of the authority of the Malay rulers and their desire to be part of the Malay society.
They did not migrate to Singapura or Tanah Melayu to become Malayan, Malaysian or Singaporean.
Their migration meant they accepted the authority of Malay rulers and represented an application to participate in Malay society, subject to our laws and customs.
Al-Makhazin
Originally published at: http://almakhazin.com/2016/03/09/the-malays-and-migration-society-and-the-rulers/
Reference:
Milner, A. C. KERAJAAN: Malayan Political Culture on the Eve of Colonial Rule. No. 40. The UnWersity of Arizena Press, Tueson. Monographof the Association fbr Asian Studies, 1982.
Tarling, N. (1998). Nations and states in Southeast Asia: Cambridge University Press.
