REFLECTING ON MALAYSIAN HISTORY THIS MAAL HIJRAH
I am
beginning to appreciate more and more the reorganisation of our school history
syllabus to place greater emphasis on Malaysian and Southeast Asian history.
Let me explain.
Many
years of speaking with educated Malaysians - lawyers, doctors, academics,
professionals, and business leaders - have led me to a rather troubling
observation. Despite having studied history in school, many Malaysians possess
only a limited understanding of the deeper history of our country and region.
For many, Malaysian history appears to begin with Parameswara and the founding
of Melaka. Everything before that seems vague, distant, or altogether absent.
It is almost as though the Malay Peninsula, Sabah, and Sarawak were empty lands
waiting to be discovered.
Nothing
could be further from the truth. The Malay Peninsula was home to organised
communities, trading centres, kingdoms, and civilisations long before Melaka
emerged. Kedah Tua, for example, was already a thriving centre of trade more
than a thousand years ago. The Kedah Sultanate traces its origins centuries
before the rise of Melaka and is among the oldest continuously existing royal
institutions in Southeast Asia.
Likewise,
the Batu Bersurat Terengganu, dated to the early fourteenth century, predates
the Melaka Sultanate. Yet many Malaysians know little about its significance.
The inscription is far more than a stone monument. It demonstrates the
existence of an organised political authority, a functioning legal system, and
the application of Islamic principles within society. Such a document could not
have appeared in isolation; it points to an established state structure already
in existence and suggests the presence of a literate administrative and
religious culture.
Unfortunately,
many Malaysians never fully appreciate these historical findings. The result is
a simplified understanding of history where Melaka appears almost suddenly,
disconnected from the centuries of developments that preceded it. We learn
about the greatness of Melaka, but often not enough about the foundations upon
which it stood.
The same
challenge exists when discussing Sabah and Sarawak. Many Malaysians possess
only a superficial understanding of Sabah and Sarawak’s rich historical
landscape. While Sabah and Sarawak did not develop centralised sultanates in
the same way as parts of the Peninsula, they were home to vibrant societies
with their own political systems, customs, trade networks, and cultural
traditions. Parts of coastal Sabah and Sarawak also came under the influence of
the Brunei and Sulu Sultanates, further enriching the region's historical
complexity.
The
histories of the Iban, Bidayuh, Melanau, Kelabit, Kadazan-Dusun, Bajau, Murut,
and numerous other indigenous communities deserve far greater attention. These
communities are not peripheral to Malaysian history. They are Malaysian
history. A deeper appreciation of Sabah and Sarawak would also help Malaysians
better understand the role played by the Brunei Sultanate and the Sulu
Sultanate in shaping the political and cultural development of northern Borneo.
These historical connections are essential for understanding the region as a
whole.
More
broadly, we need to understand that the Malay world was never confined by
modern national borders. The Malay Archipelago functioned as a vast
interconnected civilisational space. People, ideas, goods, languages, cultures,
and rulers moved across the region for centuries. Movement between Sumatra,
Java, Borneo, Sulawesi, the Malay Peninsula, and other islands was normal. It
was not migration in the modern sense of crossing rigid national boundaries; it
was movement within a shared world.
This is
why some contemporary debates sound rather strange when viewed through a
historical lens. Occasionally, one hears claims that Malays in Peninsular
Malaysia originated from Indonesia because Parameswara came from Sumatra. Such
arguments reveal a misunderstanding of how the archipelago functioned
historically. To describe Parameswara as coming from "Indonesia"
imposes a modern national identity upon a fifteenth-century world where such
borders did not yet exist.
By that
logic, one might argue that the people of Negeri Sembilan are somehow less
Malay because of their historical links to Minangkabau society. Yet nobody
familiar with Malay history would seriously make such a claim. The institutions
of Negeri Sembilan, including the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Undang system,
preserve historical connections with Minangkabau traditions dating back
centuries. These connections are celebrated, not disputed. They are part of the
richness of Malay civilisation within the wider Southeast Asian archipelago.
History teaches us that identities evolve, cultures interact, and societies
develop through continuous exchanges. The modern nation-state is a relatively
recent development. The peoples of the archipelago interacted with one another
for many centuries before the borders of Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei,
Singapore, and the Philippines came into existence. Understanding this reality
allows us to move beyond simplistic narratives.
Perhaps
it is time to revisit how we approach Malaysian history. While our current
history syllabus has many strengths, there may be value in giving greater
attention to the histories of individual states, indigenous communities,
regional kingdoms, and the wider archipelago. Students should learn not only
about Melaka, colonialism, independence, and the formation of Malaysia. They
should also understand in greater detail Kedah Tua, Langkasuka, the Batu
Bersurat Terengganu, the development of Kelantan, Terengganu, Johor, Pahang,
Perlis, and Kedah, as well as the histories of Sabah and Sarawak's indigenous
peoples and how these societies interacted with one another. Most importantly,
they should understand that the Melaka Sultanate did not emerge from a vacuum.
One must also understand how Melaka interacted with existing states such as
Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Brunei, and others, rather than imagining
it as developing in isolation. Our story stretches back centuries. It is a
story of civilisations, kingdoms, sultanates, traders, scholars, indigenous
communities, and interconnected peoples spread across the archipelago.
I find
these shallow understandings similar to how many people assume that Penang was
an empty island before the arrival of Francis Light, when in reality it was
already inhabited and linked to the Kedah Sultanate. Likewise, many people
speak of Philippine history as though it began in 1521 with the arrival of
Magellan, overlooking the rich societies and political entities that existed
long before European contact.
Speaking
of the Philippines, Rafael Palma titled his famous biography of Jose Rizal, The
Pride of the Malay Race. Palma deliberately chose that title because he
believed Rizal represented the highest potential of the Malay peoples - not
only Filipinos, but the broader Malay-Austronesian world stretching across
Southeast Asia. When Palma used the term "Malay race", he was
employing a concept common in his time that referred broadly to the peoples of
the archipelago rather than the narrower ethnic definition often used today.
Maal
Hijrah is not only a time to reflect on where we are going. It is also a time
to remember where we came from. A people who do not understand their past will
struggle to navigate their future. By understanding the long journey of the
peoples, societies, and civilisations that shaped Malaysia, we strengthen the
foundations upon which we build our shared future. The more deeply we
understand that story, the more confidently we can understand ourselves.
For
Malaysia to become more united, we must first understand, appreciate, and
develop a shared understanding of our common history.
Peace,
Anas
Zubedy
No comments:
Post a Comment