ORIGINS OF THE MALAYS AND MALAYSIA – REVISITED

As some readers might recall my earlier article “A Very Brief History of the Malays and Malaysia”, I have tried to explain about the subject in my own “naive” and “uneducated ways”. It was written out of my general knowledge and observations, as I have been traveling around the region extensively and I have always been a keen observer of the peoples that I came into encounter with. The fact that the “Malays” as I saw represents quite a large group of maybe around three hundred million people or more, it intrigues me to search and understand who the Malays are and their origins. Since the last writing, I have been reading and researching on the subject and slowly it becomes clearer to me. And thus, I would like to revisit the subject and put in proper perspectives some of the factual issues and hypothesis to correct some of the matters that I have raised earlier.

Fact 1: The first occupiers of Malaysia are undoubtedly the Semang Negritos which came to the region somewhere around 500,000 years ago. They are part of the first wave of human migration to South East Asia from the East African plains and gradually move throughout the “Islands” until finally they reached further south as far as Tasmania. They shared in a large degree many similarities to the Papuan natives as well as the aborigines in the Australian continent. They are in no way can be categorized as Malays.

Fact 2: The Malays are a branch of the so called “Austronesians” family which originates from the southern mainland China, cross the straits into the Taiwan Islands (3500 B.C.) then spread into the Philippines Islands, Borneo and the rest of the Malay archipelago (from 3500 B.C. to 1600 B.C.). Some of the Austronesians never crossed the Taiwan straits and instead move southwards and occupy what is South Vietnam and Cambodia today and became the so called Champa people. While some of the Island and seafaring Austronesians end up taking sea voyages and occupy the Pacific Islands (the Polynesians – Fiji, Tonga, Samoa etc) as far as the Hawaii Islands (from 1600 B.C. to 600 A.D.). This branch is called today as the “Polynesians”, while another smaller branch migrated to the Madagascar Island near the coast of East Africa. This probably answers the puzzle to my mind why these peoples outlook are so much similar to the Malays in South East Asia.

[The terminologies used, “Austronesians”, “Polynesians”, “Malayo Polynesians” etc., are labelled that has become the acceptable names among the academic circles of which are “wrong” because it identifies the final destinations rather than the origins. Probably someday, after more research and findings are made, these terminologies got to be changed. But for now we just take it as given].

Fact 3: The Malays in the early days (500 B.C. to 500 A.D.) never developed any Kingdoms or civilization except for three locations namely in Cambodia (Fu Nan in Angkor Wat), Sri Vijaya in today’s Palembang, Sumatra and in East Java (where Borobodur lies). These are the first three “agro” kingdom and civilization that sprung up. The other Malays are spread out among the Islands which at the time were too small and too far spread out to necessitate establishments of organized governments. The forms of government in most Islands are more along the lines of Chieftains (or small Rajas) as is evident from places like the Moluccas and the chieftains of the Pacific Islands. Most of the Malays remains hunter gatherers among these Islands, until gradually as the population grow; they were transformed into organized agrarian societies (around 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).

Fact 4: After the fall of the two Kingdoms (Fu Nan, Sri Vijaya and the Javanese), then only the Malay Kingdoms started sprung up (in coincidence with population growth and conversion from hunter gatherers to agrarian society, as well as the starting of the inter Island trading activities) in various locations throughout the Malay archipelagos. This is when the Malay Kingdom of Malacca was established (1300 A.D.) in the Peninsular Malaysia (as an off shoot from the Sri Vijaya Kingdom). The other Malays in the Borneo island remains as hunter gatherers and organized under chieftains and small Rajas – until the establishment of the Sulu sultanate (the origins of the Brunei royalty and Kingdom). [Note that I will skip discussing about other branch of the Malays such as the Polynesians and other part of the “Indonesian Islands” as my focus is about Malaysia].

Fact 5: There were no large governments prior to the Malacca Sultanate in Malaysia because the Peninsular was among the least “fertile” in terms of lands for agriculture compared to the volcanic islands of Indonesia. There were pockets of agrarian society along the various river banks of Malaysia (the Perak River, Pahang River, Muda River, Muar River, Terengganu River, Kelantan River and so on). They were too small in numbers to require major forms of government. However, given the trading activities that rose to prominence at the time, Malacca became one of the major “trading posts” for the region – and hence gave the power and prestige to the Sultanate. Which eventually subdue all other chieftains along those river banks and amalgamate them as the Malacca Sultanate (and hence many of our Sultans originate to the Malacca Sultanate – around 1400 A.D.). I believe that if we want to identify when the Malays and Malaysia originate (as a country), this event would be the best candidate as the starting point.

Fact 6: The prosperity of Malay Peninsular and the Malacca Sultanate brought along many other waves of migration of other Malays from the region. Later on during the British dominance, many other races such as the Arabs (of Yemeni descent), the Indian traders (except for the Tamils), as well as the Chinese (Cheng Ho etc) joins the fray. At the same time, Singapore and Penang gradually took over Malacca as the trading centres and eventually attracts all sorts of races and nationalities. The prosperity of Malaya rest largely on these amalgamations of other races into it (Arabs, Indians, and Chinese, Europeans), as well as migrations of many other Malays into Malaya (the Champas, the Bugis, the Javanese and so on). The fall of Malacca and the rule of the British set the beginning of the formation of Malaysia – which became a nation after the Independence.

[I skip the historical development of Sabah and Sarawak intentionally as their history literally took a different path than Peninsular Malaysia].

In summary, the establishment of Malaysia does not rise out of “great historical civilizations”, but rather a “hodgepodge” kind of events and activities that eventually gave rise to the Nationhood. Malaysia is a late comer into these nationhood and civilisation business – and claims no real former glory save for the short period of the height of the Malacca Sultanate.

Therefore, where does the “Ketuanan Melayu” arise from? The Indonesians, for example, consists of the largest Malay origin population never understood this term, and neither other branch of Malays (in Madagascar, Hawaii or the Pacific Islands) understood this subject. It comes from the British. It is part of the bargaining between the Malay Sultans and the Malay elites against the British for Independence. There is no historical claim to it except for the so called social contract that was agreed upon and became the mantra of some Malay people. The term was never well defined and understood, and in fact the social contract itself remains only a vague term that no one can really define what it means and implied. In my view, as in any contracts, it can be rewritten and redefined.

Let me now delve into another related matter: the Malay language, where does it originate? Again, evidences point out that the origins of the language is where Southern China is today (In the Provinces of Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong). The likely candidate is the so-called “Miao-Yao” language which are spoken today only among small ethnic minorities in these provinces. The reason why this language (and many other languages inside today’s China) has been eliminated and extinct was due to the thousands of years of efforts by the Chinese emperor to impose Chinese language (with Mandarin base) as the official language of China.

The Malay language, while may originate from Miao-Yao, eventually transformed itself into a more “Austroasiatic” based language, which then permeates throughout Southern Vietnam and Cambodia, the Philippines and the rest of the Malay archipelago. The lack of organized societies among the Malays (as they are scattered throughout the Islands) probably hamper the development of the language as an advanced language, each area took it own strand of development, and remains a simple language (since there was no requirements for complexities in primitive societies).

For this reason, I am of the opinion that Malay language should be kept only as communication and cultural language but we should never try or attempt to make it a scientific language. It does not have the built up for it.

Understanding the origins is important as it will clear your perspective on many things that one’s may assume or take for granted. For example, some people may feel the Chinese “immigrants” are not welcomed to Malaysia, without realizing that the Malays also migrate from the same location – except that they precedes the latter immigrants by a few thousand years and the blood in their veins shared a lot more common DNA than compared to an Indian (or Mamak). On the other hand, culturally speaking the Malays are much more closer to the Indian than a Chinese, as the Indian religion and culture were the ones that has more influence over the Malays than the Chinese.

So my conclusion is again – we are just a hodgepodge nation, a mix of everything. So do race matters anymore? Or is it that the necessity of it comes out of politics more than the reality and history? Are we going to continue race based division’s say 50 or 100 years from now? If my reading of history of mankind is correct – then give the racial divide not more than 50 years span; and race based politics not more than 10 to 20 years span, the earlier the better.

About these ads

10 Comments

Filed under Malaysian Affairs

10 responses to “ORIGINS OF THE MALAYS AND MALAYSIA – REVISITED

  1. Airata

    Pse elabrate about the Kingdom of Malacca.You mention Malay Kingdom of Malacca but as far I am concern it was a Hindu Kingdom under Parameswara and he died as a Hindu.Are you trying to change History?

    • Muz

      I think the writer never intended to misleed us in the context of Malay or Hindu kingdom of Malacca – because he did not describe/discuss the religious aspect of the kingdom. It was apparent that kingdoms/civilisation/society prior to Islamisation of the Malay kingdom ascribed to a mix of archipelago’s animism and borrowed Hinduism from India (which does not neccessarily mean that they had practised cultures all too familiar in India (apart from some of aspects of the religion given that they were Hindus) but the outlook, aspirations and temparament were most probably that of the Malays’ e.g. the Balinese (not Indian (Balinese are generally Austronesian/Mongoloid genetically) but Hindus by religion) – which was NOT discussed here (in depth) and I believe was not deliberately left out because it was probably againts the spirit of the discussion above to act/serve as a one-stop in providing extensive historical facts.

  2. Truth

    Great injustice to Malay’s history by implying that the starting point was Melaka. Obviously your sources must be Malay Muslim books which deny the pre-Muslim existence of Malays and Malay Kingdoms and influence of Hindu India. Why silent about the Hindu Kingdoms that existed in Kedah (Bujang Valley), Perak, Johor, Pahang, Kelantan etc? You have also sidestepped explaning the preponderance of Indian words in Malay such Tamil, Sanskrit, Hindi etc. Last but not least, you have also forgotten the great degree of Indian/Hindu influences on Malay culture: for eg, their houseform, food, dressing, music, dance, folklore etc.

    • From what my perspective, it seems he has not included such information only because his sources did not mention them. I’m sure it was not his intention to “forget” these facts. What he mentioned were simply the possible origins of the Malay language. We all know of the Tamil, Sanskrit, Hindi influences, but you could say the same about Portugese additions to the language and such.

      It’s easy to blame the author for neglecting such important pieces of this puzzle, but he did state that he was simply sharing his newly discovered insights on the topic, and not claiming it to be the entire truth.

      Your points seem to be valid, but instead of a response that targets the author’s lack of research, perhaps you could have taken a more civil approach and suggested what you know about the subject as additions that could easily be edited into the article.

  3. Tall Desk

    Good article. I find myself agreeing with you in many points. Indeed Malaysia is a hodgepodge nation, and racially specific politics are obsolete. About the origin of the Malays, Frank Swettenham was in the opinion that the cradle of the Malay race is at Gunung Dempo. To him, a group of southern Indians migrated to Sumatera, intermarried the locals, resulting in a new race called Malays. Another scholar stated that the Malays began labeling themselves as “Melayu” only after the founding of Melaka by Parameswara. The influences of Buddhism and Hinduism in the lives of Malays are undeniable as evidenced by archaeological finds and the Malay adat resam. The temples at the Peninsula were once religion schools that also served as temporary resting destination for monks from China on pilgrimage to India. It is obvious that the temples were built by Indian monks as the natives, at that time, were not sophisticated enough to do so. I am in the opinion that there has been all kinds of mixture involved between races. The Malay DNA tend to be more Chinese simply because majority of them were from there. I am willing to bet that we can find a Malay who has a DNA that tend to be like Indians. In summary, the Ujong Tanah Peninsula is a rojak or hodgpodge nation, like you said. I would like to point out that, for any race to lay claim of supremacy (Ketuanan) over this land, is an insult to their ancestors.

    • DR WAN MUHAMAD HASNI

      Dear Tall Desk

      Thanks for your comments and additions. I am not a historian by profession, so the only thing that I did was through my observations as I travelled the region a lot. A bit of reading did help as well.

      After many comments and discussions, I still hold my stand that Malaysia is a hodgepodge nation of mix races and origins. And Malay race in particular reference, is a hodgepodge of many origins, and far from being homogeneous.

      Thanks and regards

      WH

  4. inderaloka

    its not a FACT la macha.. its just a thory~

  5. Ghaz Baharein

    The Malay Race is a astropolynesian race in origin with mix from China and maybe India which came to the region in the second wave of migration to the Malay Archipelage (Indonesia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Borneo and the othe islands in the region) and Australia and the pacific Islands. They later remigrated all over the Archipelago for trade and later settled in various parts of the area.
    They were animists originally and latter was influenced by the Hindu and Bhuddist civilisations and various Kingdoms were established, such as Srivijaya, Majapahit and later Jambi. Of course then the Malays were either animist, Hindus or Bhudists.
    With the advent of Islam, from influence of the Arab and Indian Traders in Sumatra and Melaka and from China and Arabs in the Sulu, Patani, and the philippines most converted to Islam. Parameswara was a Malay of the Hindu faith until he converted to Islam.
    We should not mix the Malay Race to religion because the earlier settlers of Malaysia were Malays but not necessarily Muslims. For examples the early Chinese who came to Melaka married Malays who are not by then Muslims and that was the origin of the Babas and Nyonyas.
    Whatever it may be the Malay Archipelago were settled by Malays of various groups, i.e the Bugis, the Badjaus, the Muruts, the Achenese, the Sulus, the Bamjaris, the Mindanaus, etc etc. There were already Chinese, Indians and others who either intermarry and became assimilated into the Malay communities of the various regions.
    Later, because of Islamisation, colonisation, and politics, the Phillippine Malays became Christians, the Malaysians remained Muslims, The Balinese remained Hindus, the Bruneins remained Muslims and most of the Indonesians remained Muslims with the exception of Papu New Guinea, and some Islands which remained animists. Islam in a way united the majority of the Malays of the Archipelego with the exception of the Phillipines which converted to Christianity because of the Spanish persecution. (except Mindanao).
    However perspective you look at it the history of the Malays in Malaysia did NOT start with Melaka. They were already in Malaysia but under various influences and different religions. It was only in the 13th or 14th century that Islam came and changed the political and social system of the Malays and united them.
    It was during the Europeans colonisation period that the Malays were again seperated by the Europeans who carved their spheres of influence and Indonesia bacame such, Mindanao came under the Philippines, and Malaysia became Malaysia, and Southern Thailand became Thai, and Singapore became British.
    If not for these circumstance of history the Malays would consist of about 300,000,000 people comprising the region of Indonesia, Philippines, South Thailand and Burma, Malaysia and all the Islands around it, known as the Malay Archipelego then. They would be the third racial group and language after China and India.

  6. Xiana

    Thanks for the awesome article. It’s definitely a good read! :)

  7. Phoon

    The first wave out of Africa that ala Negrito happened 50 to 70k years ago and NOT 500k years ago. It’s a genetic fact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s