Category: History & heritage

Categories
History & heritage Liberty Society

[1848] Of Sultan of Selangor’s definition recalls the Malay Annals

Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah of Selangor defines the social contract as “compromise between the rulers and subjects as well as between Malays and non-Malays.”[1]

This is a new definition when compared to the typical understanding of the subject. The conventional understanding refers to the willingness of the Malays to accept various non-native migrants as citizens on the condition that the special position of the Malays is respected always.[2]

I do not agree to such unwritten contract. The only contract I hold is the non-aggression axiom, which in many ways given the current environment, it satisfyingly embedded in the Constitution. There is room for improvement but the Constitution does provide a good point to begin any journey of similar nature.

If such social contract as conventionally defined really had existed, it would be outdated anyway and incapable of moving this country forward. It unfairly condemns newer generations to mistakes of the past.

My opinion notwithstanding, the definition employed by the Sultan, while new, actually tries to reach back as far as the time the Malay Annals was compiled and edited by Tun Sri Lanang in the early 17th century in Johor. The concept of a contract between the king and the people was articulated by the Malay Annals more than 100 years earlier than Rousseau, the author whom popularized the actual term “social contract”.[3][4]

In the Malay Annals, the so-called contract between the monarchy and the Malays is mentioned during a conversation between Sri Tri Buana, the Prince and Demang Lebar Daun, the minister representing the Malays in time when Palembang was the center of the Malay universe.[5]

Sri Tri Buana as claimed by the Malay Annals traced his lineage back to Alexander the Great. The veracity of the claim made by Tun Sri Lanang in the Malay classic is suspect but such claim is typical of effort to legitimize the rule of any monarchy, including that of Johor. Tun Sri Lanang was the Bendahara, or the Prime Minister, within the royal court of Johor at the time and the Sultan of Johor then was the direct descendant of the last Sultan of Malacca originated from the royal court of Palembang.

As one can see, even without the grand claim to Alexander, the lineage of the Sultan of Johor at that time was already impressive, reaching back to the days of Srivijaya. But Tun Sri Lanang needed to reposition the royal line to assume more Islamic tone while discarding the Buddhist and Hindu past.

Back to the conversation, Sri Tri Buana was requesting for the hand of Demang Lebar Daun’s daughter in marriage. The marriage here is really symbolic to the partnership between the royalty and the Malay people.

The latter would only consent to the marriage if the Prince would agree to two conditions. Firstly, the daughter must never be banished from the palace. The second condition demands, as translated by Sabri Zain,[6] “the descendants of your humble servants shall be the subjects of your majesty’s throne, but they must be well-treated by your descendants. If they offend, they shall not, however grave their offence, be disgraced or reviled with evil words: if their offence is grave, let them be out to death, if that is in accordance with Muslim law.”

The Prince quickly agreed to the conditions.

Upon agreeing to the condition, Sri Tri Buana wanted Demang Lebar in return to agree “that your descendants shall never for the rest of time be disloyal to my descendants, oppress them and behave in an evil way to them.”

Both further agreed that if one or the other departed from the undertakings, the pact would become undone by itself.

But is that the Malaysian social contract?

It seems as if the idea from the Malay Annals is being combined to the conventional definition.

Like the idea of Bangsa Malaysia, the Malaysian social contract is becoming so nebulous that it basically could assume so many definitions. As for me, I have mentioned before, I prefer the simpler non-aggression axiom.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — SHAH ALAM, Nov 30 — De facto PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yesterday blamed Prime Ministergo to table a motion of no confidence against the government. [Social contract means compromise, Selangor Sultan explains. Leslie Lau. The Malaysian Insider. December 7 2008]

[2] — See Social Contract (Malaysia) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[3] — See Malay Annals at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[4] — See Social Contract (Rousseau) at Wikipedia. Accessed December 9 2008

[5] — Page 25 – 26. Sulalatus Salatin: Sejarah Melayu. Tun Sri Lanang. Edited by A. Samad Ahmad. Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka. 1997

[6] — Sejarah Melayu: A History of the Malay Peninsula. The Tuah Legend. Sabri Zain. Accessed December 9 2008.

Categories
History & heritage

[1788] Of the day Sarawak parted from Brunei

Trivia: 167 years ago, on this day, Sarawak was ceded by the Sultanate of Brunei to James Brooke.

Trivia 2: Early Portuguese catographers identified Sarawak as Cerava.

Categories
History & heritage

[1779] Of the myths surrounding the formation of Malaysia

Several myths about the formation of Malaysia require addressing.

First revolves around the notion that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaya in 1963 to form Malaysia. This is simply untrue because all member states of Malaysia federated to form a new federation called Malaysia. Nobody joined Malaya in 1963.

The second myth concerns how Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined Malaysia. This is at best inaccurate and at worst downright false. The rationale against this myth is the absence of Malaysia as a state in prior to 1963. Instead Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore helped establish Malaysia.

Those who believed in either the first or the second myth tend to cite the United States of America as an example of how changes in the number of membership do not affect a state as an entity. The comparison however is flawed because the history of the US does not run parallel to that of Malaysia.

It differs in a way that 37 states other than the original 13 states of the United States joined a pre-existing union. The United States was formed as an entity in 1776 and 37 other states joined that union after 1776.

In the case of Malaysia, nobody joined any pre-existing entity simply because there is no pre-existing entity to join into. There was no Malaysia as a state to join into prior to September 16 1963. What existed were the Federation of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore.

The example of the US is only applicable for Malaysia if there are changes in membership after 1963. Just how addition of new member states into the union does not affect the United States’ status as a state after the formation of the state, any change of membership of the federation — save total dissolution of Malaysia — after 1963 will not affect the status of Malaysia as a state. It is for this very reason that Malaysia still exists after Singapore was expelled in 1965. If Brunei is to join Malaysia in 2009, Malaysia will still be the state it was in 1963.

Third myth is about Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya coming together to form Malaysia. This too is false though compared to the other three myths, this does come closer to the truth since the contrary is certainly arguable given how the Malaysia Agreement was signed and executed. Nevertheless, all 14 member states of 1963 Malaysia, each as a separate entity, federated to form a 14-state federation and this is made clear in the Malaysia Act 1963.[1] It was not a 4-state federation. The member states of Malaya did not participate in Malaysia as a unitary Malaya but rather, they joined the new federation on individual basis. In forming Malaysia, the Federation of Malaya was immediately dissolved to allow the 11 states of Malaya along with three other states to federate; the Federation of Malaya ceased to exist upon the establishment of Malaysia.

The final myth confuses Malaya with Malaysia. The difference between Malaya and Malaysia goes beyond superficial change in name. The 20-point agreement between signed at the time between Sabah and the would-be federal government of Malaysia specifically mentioned that the Constitution of Malaysia is not the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya.[2] Therefore, the two Constitutions are two different documents and each document governs different state.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — (1) For the purpose of enabling North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore (in this Act referred to as “the new States”) to federate with the existing States of the Federation of Malaya (in this Act referred to as ”the Federation”), the Federation thereafter being called Malaysia, on the day on which the new States are federated as aforesaid (in this Act referred to as ”the appointed day”) Her Majesty’s sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the new States shall be relinquished so as to vest in the manner agreed between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Federation and the new States. [Malaysia Act 1963. Office of Public Sector Information. Accessed September 16 2008]

[2] — Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo (Sabah) was of course essential. [20-point agreement. Wikipedia. Accessed September 16 2008]

Categories
History & heritage Politics & government

[1698] Of we need to start healing

Gerald Ford is one of my favorite presidents of the United States of America and there are only two reasons for that. Number one is due to the fact that he attended the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor; that is my school. Number two was the way he answered the question posed by his predecessor, Richard Nixon. We Malaysians perhaps have our own Nixon in form of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed and how we deal with the Prime Minister may parallel what President Ford had done.

For the longest time, Dr. Mahathir was the only Prime Minister I had ever known. In all channels, from television to radio to printed press, I could not remember any single day that passed by without the mention of his name. He was everywhere, every time.

A friend once mentioned to me that Dr. Mahathir has done more to Malaysia more than anybody else, for better or for worse. A general statement such as that may not survive upon closer scrutiny but it is easy to agree to such rhetoric. Because all of that and more, I have this kind of attachment to him. It is a kind of earned respect that is impossible for time to erode.

Yet, I am a firm believer of justice and Dr. Mahathir has done a lot of wrongs as the chief executive officer of this country. To every action, there is a reaction and that concept is central to the way I live my life and my worldview.

There are many components that make up a successful society and one of them is trust of individuals toward various institutions. A state institution which fails to defend justice will lose its credibility and a society with such institutions will inevitably spend more time fighting for justice instead of discovering its true potential.

Hence, I face a moral dilemma between respect that I have for the man and justice.

Upon reflection, I came to recall the Watergate scandal in which President Nixon was the main actor. The scandal forced him to resign from his office as criminal conviction loomed on the horizon. Gerald Ford then became the 38th US president.

The issue of conviction could bring about a very divisive period and President Ford realized this. Instead of letting that happened, he gave Nixon an unconditional pardon, hereby allowing the first step of healing to take place.

And healing is what Malaysia needs at the moment. Whatever Dr. Mahathir had done in the past, he should be pardoned.

That however does not mean we should forget his gross violations of individual liberty and the corruption of all three branches of government that he caused. No. We should learn from the past and strive not to make the wrongs made in the past.

Towards that end, what we need is a truth and reconciliation commission, not another royal commission solely set up to bring the man down. There is a fine line between justice and vengeance and I at the moment do not have an appetite for witch hunting, especially when it greatly benefits others with less than innocent political motives and ambitions. What has passed has passed and it is time to move on.

In times when the stability of the federal government is suspect, whoever the next Prime Minister would be, I wish for him to tread the path President Ford had treaded on.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — a version of this article was first published by The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
History & heritage

[1678] Of Sailendra and Srivijaya

The relationship between Srivijaya and the Sailendras has always been problematic to me. Initially, I had believed that the two were separate but closely linked entities but the truth is, the relationship is far more complex than that.

Srivijaya of course was the confederation of Malay states or rather, cities with the principal center being Palembang on Sumatra. The principal city did move from time to time to Jambi but Palembang was the main center of power for most of the times. From Palembang, Srivijayan influence radiated outward toward the Isthmus of Kra, western Borneo and central Java. It also controlled several areas on the bank of the Mekong until Jayavarman II declared independence to establish the Khmer Empire.

The nature of the Sailendras is more mysterious to me. They ruled over western and central Java, considerably far from Palembang but yet, they played a huge role in Srivijayan politics. Now, the question is, did the Sailendras exist independently of Srivijaya? Was Sailendra part of Srivijaya or merely a faithful and reliable ally? Was the Sailendra a kingdom or a noble family typical of a feudal society?

The background of several maharajas of Srivijaya further does not make the situation any clearer. The 8th century maharaja Dharmasetu was not a member of the Sailendras but he was mentioned as the head of Sailendra. Succeeding Dharmasetu as the maharaja was his son-in-law, a Sailendra. Samarantungga, another maharaja in Palembang, was a member of the Sailendras whom married Dharmasetu’s daughter, Dewi Tara.

The son-in-law which became the maharaja, known as Vishnu, was the one that started the construction of the Borobudur. Here is yet another question: Srivijaya was known for its Buddhism while the Sailendras were Hindus. Why a Sailendran would build not only a Buddhist monument, but the largest Buddhist monument in the whole wide world at its time?

More question: what happened before Dharmasetu? What was the nature of Srivijaya-Sailendra relationship before Dharmasetu and during Dharmasetu’s reign? Why did the Sailendra hold a special place within Srivijaya?

By the time of Vishnu, the one thing that I know is that the Sailendras married into the existing Srivijayan royal blood and from there on, they took over the helm of Srivijaya. After Vishnu, the Srivijayan throne went to Samarantungga, yet another Sailendran. His son Balaputra also became the maharaja of Srivijaya.

Balaputra began as a weak head of the Sailendra. During this time, the Sailendras saw their influence being challenged by the Sanjayas. Now, the relationship between the Sailendras and the Sanjayas is another issue lost in history. That notwithstanding, The Sailendras were forced to leave Java by the Sanjayas during a power struggle in the 9th century. The Sailendra retreated and settle in Palembang, the home city of Balaputra’s mother, Dewi Tara. After the overthrow of the Sailendras by the Sanjayas in Java, Balaputra became the maharaja of Srivijaya.

After Balaputra, somehow, the Sailendras ceased to come up in my reading despite the fact the Srivijaya lasted for at least another 400 years. This could be explained by the expulsion of the Sailendras from Java by the Sanjayas but this that would treat the Sailendras as a kingdom, and not a family, which is another cause for confusion.

But in any case, the Sanjayas continued to build the Mataram kingdom. They ruled of western and central Java until Srivijaya eliminated them in the 11th century. As a side note, the fall of Mataram led to the formation of a Javanese royalty by the name of Airlangga to build the kingdom of Kahuripan. This kingdom is the precursor to the kingdom of Singhasari which later led to the Majapahit kingdom. The Srivijayan empire came to an end when Majapahit occupied Palembang and Jambi in the 13th century.

It is worth noting that the rivalry between the Sailendras and the Sanjayas may well be the beginning of the famed Malay-Javanese rivalry.

To make matter more confusing, the Sanjayas were actually part of the Sailendra dynasty.

While the home of the Sailendra was central Java, they were not of Javanese origin. So for from my reading, they might have come from Sumatra, Funan or India. The strongest possibly in my opinion on the moment is that they came from Sumatra. The reason is that Old Malay instead of Sanskrit were extensively used in matter related to the Sailendras. But I suppose, nobody knows for sure.