It strikes me as odd that the most successful federations throughout history of Southeast Asia centered around the Strait of Malacca. Those federations include Srivijaya, Negeri Sembilan, the Federated Malay States, Malaya and later Malaysia. I am unaware of any other federation that exist outside the link between Srivijaya and Malaysia. Is there something about the people of this area that prefer a federated form of government instead of unitary states?
At first glance, I think culture and other deterministic factors like tried form of governance which later reinforced local culture are the answers. I would really love to visit it soon. I find it hard to resort to coincidence; coincidence sounds like a lazy man’s answer.
In the meantime, I would appreciate if you, dear readers, could offer your thoughts on the matter.
15 replies on “[1426] Of from the Srivijayan mandala to the Malaysian federation”
Dear Sir,
Thank you for the lead.
Dear Hafiz.
You have asked a very fundamental and intriguing question. Why the Melayu like a ‘federation’ form statehood? The answers perhaps, I must empahasize on the ‘perhaps’ because no body would be able to provide the final answer with unequivocal certainty. Nevertheless there is an anthropological theory of statehood which may be of relevence to understanding the Melayu preference for a ‘federation’ form. This suggestion is based on the theory utilized by James Warren who wrote the highly interesting book: The Sulu Sea, trying to explain the prepondrance of the ‘federation’ type of statehood in the Sulu Sea. The same idea was also taken up by Keith W. Taylor, writing about the kingdom of Champa in the series of books on SEA history. See Nicholas Tarling, ed. The Cambridge History of southeast Asia, Book One, Part One: “The early Kingdoms”. These are all part of Melayu kingdoms of old. The theory is based on the ‘segmentary’ kinship system which is the predominant form of kinship among the so-called cognatic or bilateral societies of the world, of which orang Melayu is one of them. Because of the inherent segmentation of the kinship, everyone of the group of kinsmen would split into their own line of descent and thus form several kinship groups rivalling each other even if they were from the same ancestor. The Melayu do not have the Arabian, Scottish or Chinese male-descended lineage system or a family name to hold together as a corporate group all the males and inherit collectively their inheritence. They will always divided it into small pieces, just like the pieces of the ‘federation’ system. You may want to go further in this by refering to the couple of names I mentioned. Good luck. Keep it up. Sincerely, zainal.
Perhaps population and war is the key. And war are cause by resource shortage and territory expansion. Due to the tropical weather and low population density, food and land are abundance. Prolong dried season rarely an issue in the tropical heaven.
An early poet(~CE 220) from China describe, “I work when the sun rise. Rest when the sun set. When I thirsty, I dig a well, farm for my food. The king power does little to me.” In the pass, no human being will risk their life for war unless they are stressed from hungers.
OTH, IndoChina are “over population” compare to some SEA region.
Dear Nu,
That’s a tough nut to crack. Maybe unlike Malaya which had no stronger central power that can overwhelm the rest (besides the Brits), Java exerted strong influence over the surrounding islands and thus, makes unitary state possible (i.e. Indonesia).
IIRC, the earliest national consciousness in Malaya itself has its compass pointing towards Java. Java has always been the densest islands, and one of the richest place culturally in the archipelago even during the classical times. So, I feel it is easy to gravitate towards Java. Those new Malaya-wide nationalists wanted to merge with Indonesia. AFAIK, they were the earliest groups to break away from national consciousness limited to their smaller states on Malaya.
Maybe because Malaya was far more developed than many others places surrounding Java, coupled with differing living experience under the Brits and the Dutch (which isolated Malaya from developing trend that encouraged formation of a unitary state), Malaya was prevented from joining Indonesia and continued with its own isolated factors that led to the formation of their federation. That could explain why Malaya and Malaysia was and is a federation and Indonesia is not.
That however explains modern history; it does not quite explore classical times through. For instance, why Srivijaya was a confederation but not Majapahit? Does the same point, strong central power, applies to Majapahit?
Hafiz
Thanks for your replies.
I didnt know Indonesia started as a federation.. Interesting fact. (and interesting map )
I agree that Malays had no national consciousness until recently (and one could argue that the one they have nowadays is an one, right ?). But I doubt there was a national consciousness in Indonesia before the nationalists took over. And where did it come from ? Why the indonesian nationalist movement decided to build a nation while in Malaysia some loose ethno-liberal concept was promoted ?
Dear Nu,
I don’t think it was the British. I feel the Malays themselves back then had no “national consciousness” or “Malay consciousness” to begin with. Their loyalty was with their respective state or ruler instead of “Malaya”. That wider consciousness only existed after the Brit themselves tried to put the whole of Malaya under one entity which was opposed by the Malays. Maybe that is the answer: the Malays or the local populace at that time were not considered as one by the local themselves, unlike those civilizations in Indochina; Siam, Burma, Angkor, etc.
And another interesting point, Indonesia itself was a federation before it became a full republic in 1950.
Hmmm..
I hate taking every back to colonization but in this case, would you agree that British colonization and indirect rule certainly put less emphasis on the nation-state ideal than say the dutch or the french ?
For Indochina, i’d go back to it not being an island (or even a peninsula).
the limited central influence or rather, distributed power among relatively similar culture leads to federation.
yeah but why is central power limited or rather distributed there and not in other places ?
i thought that was the question debated..
Dear Nu,
But those states that later formed Malaysia were colonized too. For Indochina, even before colonization, there was no federation, which is very unlike that in Malaya and Sumatra.
I am currently in the opinion that the limited central influence or rather, distributed power among relatively similar culture leads to federation.
All the states in Malaysia was formed at all different point in times, much like Srivijiya.
The territories were all sovereign and are ruled by rulers with different social and economic goals. The only reason they are together is purely for the benefit of their own, for eg. Making trade routes accesable. Having a bigger population doesn’t hurt considering it makes it easier to find labor.
Beyond that, they are not united.
Malaysia in my opinion cannot be considered as a Federation anymore by its curent state. Malaysias federal goverment has stepped over all states and have centralized all the power. All of malaysias State goverments are a joke.
It is not so hard…
In ancient time…
Most typical “Malay” States have their roots in the River. even the traditional house is for the river!
The stronger river tends to rules the weaker river but not in a direct method. it is not practical to control other states directly. they just ask title and small gifts from their other kings. So it is practically a confederation of Rivers state.
and finally they do the stupid thing of inbreeding….
Java is a more city state, and they are denser in population.
They don’t have the same river enviroment… but rather they dthemselve ug up their own pits/parits.
Philipines… i have no knowledge
Indonesia and the Phillipines ?
easy: colonization.
I mean both states got engaged in some pretty ambitious nation-building policies build around the idea that the nation-state is the most desirable type of country.
I mean we’re talking about countries that have laws that virtually eliminate regional or ethnic parties.
And in Indochina, the influence of french centralist jacobinism on the political elites is even bigger.
(i was tempted to use the dominant island theory but Java is probably less dominant than the malay peninsula)
Hi, I think its the strategic geography and dynamic population contributes to that.
assalaamualaikum,
it is rather interesting reading your blog, well, even though some of it that i don’t understand but still i find it really interesting. your writing and your idea is exactly what i search in me. to become a better Malay its hard to get out from the circle since the environment with the Malays is really passive.
p/s your blog is just to advance for me.. but I’m looking forward to read your writing regarding Malaysia new economic approach toward vision 2020; wilayah pembangunan iskandar(WPI) , wilayah ekonomi pantai timur (ECER), wilayah ekonomi koridor utara( NCER), and koridor pembangunan wilayah serawak( RECARDO).
regards,
abid
Dear Nu,
By area, I mean the archipelago and in wider context, including the Indochina. Indeed, the lack of dominant island sounds like a tempting answer. But it doesn’t explain why Indonesia and the Philippines are not federations.
When you ask about the area, are you asking about the Strait of Malaca or the archipelago in general ?
Because it seems to be that the region itself, being an archipelago without a dominant island justifies the federalist tendency. Plus trade and migration reinforces that.