Malays
actively shunned and refused to participate in the various colonial
endeavors even those that could potentially benefit us. Instead we
undertook a form of passive resistance, utilizing what John C Scott
refers to as “weapons of the weak.”
While
these everyday forms of passive resistance may not grab headlines,
nonetheless they are akin to the cumulative accumulation of the coral
reefs. In the aggregate and over time they exert a profound impact. When
the ship of state runs aground on such reefs, attention is directed to
the shipwreck and not to the aggregations of petty acts that made those
treacherous reefs possible.
So was the
Malayan Union initiative shipwrecked upon a reef of resentment and
resistance that had quietly been building up and concretized over time.
Of course the weapon of the weak had its price. As those brave little
acts of defiance did not fit the colonials’ narrative of us as being
“nature’s gentlemen,” they had to invent new ones. Thus was born the
myth of the lazy native that later became the colonialists’ convenient
justification for bringing in those indentured laborers.
Those tribulations notwithstanding, we should realize that even in the
most evil system there are slivers of good and of individuals with
goodwill within it. In our rightful condemnation of colonization we must
also be aware of the good colonization had brought to our society,
whether those were intentional or merely unintended consequences.
Then there were those enlightened colonial officers who were
sympathetic to our cause. There was for example, R J Wilkinson who was
instrumental in setting up Malay College in 1905, and Richard Winstedt,
the Sultan Idris Training College in 1922.
The British also outlawed some of the more odious aspects of our culture, like slavery and indentured labor (orang hamba).
They also brought in modern education and the rubber industry. Yes,
they also burdened our land with a race problem that we are still
grappling with.
Seeing that we could not possibly
prevail if we were to frontally confront the colonials, nonetheless we
could have through our leaders arranged a workable accommodation instead
of shunning the colonials entirely. Then they would not have to import
those cheap foreign labors. More importantly, the colonials then would
not have to concoct those ugly myths about us.
With our leaders’ encouragement we could have participated in those
colonial ventures and learned something from them, much like Munshi
Abdullah did. Likewise, had we not projected wholly evil motives on the
part of the colonials we could have encouraged our children to attend
the much superior English schools. Had we done so, our community would
not have been left so far behind come time of independence.
After all, our leaders (including and especially the sultans) readily
corroborated with the colonials. They unabashedly absorbed the ways of
the English and lapped up any scrap of British title bestowed upon them.
The sultans and aristocrats did not hesitate in sending their children
to English schools, even their daughters to those “convents.”
Our leaders should have likewise encouraged the rakyats to do the same
and not have double standards – one for them and another for the rest.
Our leaders were hypocrites in being shameless anglophiles while
condemning the colonials in front of the rakyats.
This was in stark contrast with the way we dealt with the coming of
Islam. Both leaders and rakyats were honest with each other; we were all
on the same wavelength, each supporting the other in their collective
and united response to this new force.
Another reason I did not give top marks to our encounter with
colonization was this. We failed to differentiate the significant
differences between the various colonizers. They may all be Europeans,
but there were vast differences between the Dutch and Portuguese on one
hand, and the British on the other. For the Dutch, look what they did to
Indonesia; for the Portuguese, Angola and East Timor.
As far as colonials go, the British were slightly on the benign side;
their Anglo Saxon ethics and sense of fairness are worthy of our
emulation. Besides, being the nation that ushered in the Industrial
Revolution they had something to teach the world, and that included
Malays.
Had we embraced the technological
modernization that the British had to offer just as enthusiastically as
we did the spiritual values of Islam, we could have had the best of both
worlds; the British for our material and worldly needs; Islam our
spiritual and “other worldly” yearnings.
That
we did not embrace the modernization brought in by the British
reflected our own insecurity with Islam. We feared that the infidel
colonials would “contaminate” our Islamic values. By not partaking in
the educational and other opportunities afforded by the British (scarce
as they were), we put ourselves at a significant disadvantage vis a vis the other communities in Malaysia that harbored no such reservations.
Imagine had we enthusiastically utilized the British influence to
enhance our literature and language, or learn trading skills from the
nation of shopkeepers. Our national language would by now be fully
developed and we would be accomplished entrepreneurs. Instead, we were
obsessed with maintaining the “purity” of our language to the extent of
avoiding obvious words like “radio” preferring instead our very own
native and “pure” tetuang udara (lit. pouring out air), no matter how awkward that sounded.
Ironically, Malay language expanded exponentially only after
independence when we, without reservations adopted wholesale English
words even when there were perfectly adequate Malay ones!
As for trading skills, we missed out on the Arabs and again with the
English. No wonder today we have only the pseudo variety of
entrepreneurs in our midst.
Next: Imagining Otherwise
Adapted from the author’s latest book, Liberating The Malay Mind, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia , 2013.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home