A history of Malayan history
J.M. Gullick, a veteran colonial administrator and historian, published this historiographical survey in 1998 (a revised version of a 1988 talk), tracing the evolution of Malayan historical writing from 1800 to 1939. His overarching thesis is that “there are many kinds of history,” and that the purpose, personality, and sources of each author determine the character of the work produced.
Summary
Gullick organises his survey not chronologically but typologically, identifying distinct genres of historical writing that emerged in response to different imperatives. He begins with Malay-language traditions: Raja Ali Haji’s Tuhfat-al-Nafis as heroic Bugis tradition in the style of Herodotus; Munshi Abdullah’s work as a basis for a reform programme grounded in the idea of progress; and the later royal chronicles of Kedah, Selangor, Pahang, Johor, Kelantan, and Sungei Ujong, which owed their existence to royal encouragement and the rulers’ own engagement with European historical writing (pp. 91–92, 97–99).
The European contribution is traced from the early “voyage of discovery” mode—Crawfurd, Begbie, Newbold, Earl, and the contributors to Logan’s Journal—through the diplomatic and justificatory writing of Anderson, Low, and Swettenham, to what Gullick terms “colonial records history,” exemplified by Braddell’s 1874 memoranda justifying British intervention in Perak, Selangor, and Sungei Ujong (pp. 92–96). He engages directly with Milner’s critique of this genre, acknowledging its inherent bias while defending the necessity of using official sources, citing Yeo Kim Wah’s rejoinder and Warren’s creative use of coroners’ reports as evidence that even limited sources can yield rich history (pp. 95–96).
The final phase Gullick identifies is the professionalisation of Malayan history through education and academic discipline. Wilkinson’s Papers on Malay Subjects series (begun 1907) served the practical need to equip new European recruits with knowledge of Malay culture for government examinations, while Winstedt’s state histories in the Journal introduced a more scholastic method, though still lacking the precise footnote annotation that modern academic history demands. Gullick singles out Lennox Mills’ British Malaya 1824–1867 (1925) and Rupert Emerson’s Malaysia (1936) as outstanding inter-war precursors to the annotated, research-driven standard that would follow (pp. 99–102).
Key Findings
- Raja Ali Haji’s Tuhfat-al-Nafis was ranked by Winstedt second only to the Sejarah Melayu in importance; Sultan Abdul Samad of Selangor, even at the end of the 19th century, insisted he was a Bugis rather than a Malay ruler (p. 91).
- Braddell’s three-part memorandum of January–February 1874, written as Attorney-General to justify Sir Andrew Clarke’s intervention in Perak, Selangor, and Sungei Ujong, provided half-century state histories drawn from official records as a government background paper (p. 95).
- The Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913 reflected official concern about a landless Malay peasantry, but Dr Paul Kratoska’s research showed that all sections of Malay society had considerable doubts about withdrawing lands from full market value (p. 96).
- Wilkinson’s Papers on Malay Subjects series, begun in 1907 under the patronage of Ernest Birch, was designed to prepare expatriate government recruits for examinations requiring knowledge of Malay language, culture, and history; a selection was reprinted as classics in 1971 (pp. 99–100).
- Lennox Mills’ British Malaya 1824–1867 (1925) was notable for both careful archival research and the use of annotation; Rupert Emerson’s Malaysia (1936) drew the wrath of the ageing Swettenham, who objected to the word “Malaysia” in the title as “barbarous” (p. 102).
- Logan’s Journal (1847–1859) was the first major local venture in publishing a learned journal; the founders of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1877 explicitly acknowledged their aim to continue Logan’s work as a collective collaborative venture (pp. 94–95).
Conclusion
Gullick’s definitive takeaway is a defence of history’s value against the dismissals of Voltaire (“a tableau of crimes and misfortunes”) and Henry Ford (“more or less bunk”). He argues that any nation or society needs a perception of its past as much as of its future, and that the diversity of historical writing—romantic, reformist, justificatory, academic—is itself a sign of a living engagement with the past, in which “the debate is part of the contemporary activity of our times” (p. 102).
Context
- This article draws on Gullick’s own archival experience as a long-serving colonial administrator (he served in the Malayan Civil Service and held posts including Secretary to the Resident Council of Negri Sembilan), giving him direct access to official files such as the Kuala Pilah office file containing Lister’s original draft (p. 96).
- Historiographically, the piece sits at the intersection of Milner’s “colonial records history” critique (1986) and Yeo Kim Wah’s rejoinder (1987), positioning itself as a practitioner’s defence of the official archive while acknowledging its limitations.