Article

Marriage

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Marriage

Marriage in the Malay Peninsula and Borneo has been a persistent subject of inquiry in the Society’s literature, examined from legal, ritual, and economic perspectives across more than a century of publication. The surviving records span from the late nineteenth century through the mid-twentieth century, covering Chinese polygamous unions adjudicated in colonial courts, Menangkabau wedding speeches preserved in oral tradition, Perak betrothal ceremonies, and the stratified dowry systems of Borneo’s Illanun and Bajau communities. Together these studies reveal marriage as a site where indigenous custom, colonial law, and economic obligation intersect, and where the encounter between English statutory frameworks and non-English family structures produced distinctive hybrid legal and cultural outcomes.

Chinese Polygamous Marriage and Colonial Jurisprudence

The most sustained legal treatment of marriage in the Society’s literature is Roland St. John Braddell’s 1921 article on Chinese marriages as regarded by the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements [1]. Braddell, a Penang barrister who had personally appeared as counsel for secondary-wife claimants in several of the cases discussed, traced roughly a century of jurisprudence on the problem of applying English intestacy statutes—drafted on the assumption of monogamy and English-style legitimacy—to the estates of Chinese decedents who maintained principal wives (t’sai) and secondary wives (t’sip) [1, pp. 153–165].

The fundamental legal dilemma Braddell identifies is one of structural incompatibility. The English Statute of Distributions speaks of “one wife” and of “children” in the English sense of legitimate offspring, to the exclusion of bastards and adopted children. Chinese law, by contrast, recognises a hierarchical polygamous family in which the t’sip occupies a defined legal position inferior to the t’sai but far removed from mere concubinage, and in which the children of a t’sip are legitimate and inherit alongside those of the t’sai [1, pp. 153–155]. The Charters of Justice (1807, 1826, 1855) directed the Courts to have regard to the religions, manners, and customs of the inhabitants, but did not specify how far that regard extended [1, p. 154].

The early Recorders—Sir William Norris, Sir Benjamin Malkin, and above all Sir Benson Maxwell—were forced to construct a doctrinal basis for recognising polygamous unions from first principles, and their reasoning shifted over time from the Charter to international comity and back again [1, pp. 154–155]. In 1858, Sir Benson Maxwell in Regina v. Willans held that polygamous marriages celebrated in the Colony were valid on the ground of international comity—a bold position given that all major English jurists (Kent, Burge, Story) and all recorded English decisions up to that date had placed polygamy outside the pale of Christian comity [1, pp. 156–157]. In 1867, in In the goods of Lao Leong An, Maxwell held that a t’sip was a lawful spouse entitled to an equal share of the intestate’s estate with the t’sai, a decision that remained unchallenged for forty years [1, p. 158].

The pivotal moment in this evolution was the Six Widows’ Case (1905–1909), arising from the estate of Choo Eng Choon, a wealthy British-born Chinese subject domiciled in the Colony. Six women claimed to be his lawful widows; the son of his first t’sai and a second t’sai mounted a determined attack on the settled law, arguing that the Chinese were not truly polygamous and that English courts could not recognise polygamy for any purpose. The appellants called a formidable array of Chinese consular officials as expert witnesses. The Court of Appeal (Sir William Hyndman-Jones and Sir Thomas Braddell) overruled the attack, but on a different doctrinal ground from Maxwell’s: rather than international comity, they anchored their decision in the Charter of 1855 [1, pp. 159–163]. The Court also added a new principle—that a child legitimised per subsequens matrimonium under Chinese law is legitimate and entitled to share in the children’s two-thirds under the Statute of Distributions, following the English precedent of In re Goodman’s Trusts [1, p. 163].

In 1920, the Privy Council (Ngai Lau Shia v. Low Chee Neo; Cheang Thye Phin v. Tan Ah Loy, 1920 A.C. 369) held that no proof of a ceremony is essential to establish t’sip status, which may be presumed from cohabitation and repute [1, p. 163]. Braddell draws heavily on the reported judgments themselves, on Sir George Staunton’s 1810 translation of the Manchu Code (Ta Ching Lu Li), and on the Charters of Justice. He reproduces at length a passage from Mr. Justice Ebden’s judgment in Ngai Lau Shia v. Low Chee Neo, which provides the most systematic English-language exposition of the t’sai/t’sip distinction under Chinese law [1, pp. 164–165]. The article is thus both a legal history and a practitioner’s defence of the judicial approach he had personally advocated in the courts [1, pp. 159].

Menangkabau and Malay Wedding Rituals

J.L. Humphreys, a Straits Settlements civil servant, published in 1916 a verbatim transcription and English translation of a set Malay wedding speech recited in Naning (Alor Gajah, Malacca) by Ungkai Lisut, a local headman of the Mungkar tribe [2]. The speech, first heard by Humphreys in 1908 and verified by re-recitation in 1914 with “hardly the alteration of a word” between the two recitations, is a fixed oral formula of 131 lines of rhymed Malay prose that a headman would recite before the bride’s clan headman at the moment the bridegroom is led onto the verandah of the bride’s house [2, p. 25].

The speech is structured in three movements. The opening invokes a fourfold hierarchy of authority: the law of God, the law of the Prophet, the law of tradition, and the custom of the land [2, pp. 25–26]. The middle section traces the life-cycle obligations of parents toward their children, framed as a fivefold “debt”: severing the navel, paying the midwife, washing and cleansing, circumcision (akir baligh), and giving in wedlock [2, p. 28]. The closing section narrates the specific marriage being consummated, from the informal advances of go-betweens through the exchange of a pledge-ring (chinchin) to the final fulfilment of the bond [2, pp. 30–31]. If the ring is received, the bride-price is paid and the couple wedded; if rejected, it returns [2, pp. 30–31].

Humphreys situates the speech within the broader Menangkabau exogamic system, directing readers to the fuller treatment in Rembau (Parr and Mackray) for the Negri Sembilan variant [2, p. 25]. He notes the speech’s homely precepts recall passages in Virgil’s Second Georgic, drawing a parallel between the Naning peasantry and the Virgilian farmer bound to sacred custom [2, p. 25]. The ritual context included fencing, fireworks, and a show of resistance below the house, with Hailam kulis performing Chinese boxing before the headman led the bridegroom up the steps [2, p. 25]. The evidential basis is singular: the speech itself, preserved in the memory of one speaker and confirmed by his ability to reproduce it verbatim six years later. Humphreys adds no independent archival or documentary corroboration; the value of the piece lies in capturing a performative text before it was lost to the rapid social changes of the colonial period [2, p. 25].

R. O. Winstedt’s 1929 note on an old Perak account of betrothal ceremonies provides a complementary view of Malay marriage practice [3]. The account details the full sequence of a Perak betrothal: private enquiries by the youth’s relatives, ratification before the Penghulu Masjid (mosque chief) or kampong (village) elder, the sending of two sireh (betel) caskets containing gold “coconut-blossom” rings as betrothal tokens, and the associated ceremony at the girl’s house with its exchanges of song, feast, and formal gifts [3, pp. 448–449]. Winstedt also records the legal and social consequences of broken engagements—including fines, the return or retention of rings, and the penalty for abduction (di-panjat)—as well as the subsequent rituals leading to the wedding: the groom’s visit to watch over his fiancée, the exchange of ablution gifts and cakes during Ramadan, and the threshing-season gathering [3, pp. 449–450].

Dowry Systems and Social Classification in Borneo

D. Headly, a colonial administrator in North Borneo, published in 1951 a brief ethnographic note describing the marriage customs of the Illanun and Bajau peoples of the Kota Belud district [4]. The Illanuns arrived from Mindanao approximately 150 years prior, while the Bajaus’ origins are less certain but probably also Philippine. Both groups are now primarily peasant farmers whose main wealth lies in buffaloes, though some Illanuns also fish [4, p. 159].

The core of the article is a detailed account of the social classification system that governs marriage payments. Illanun society divides into two main classes—Dato (two subclasses) and Pitu (three subclasses)—each with a fixed dowry (berian) originally denominated in the weight of brass cannon but now converted to cash [4, pp. 159–160]. The system encodes lineage prestige: the Dato are said to descend from the original Mindanao leaders, while mixed Illanun-Bajau descent lowers a person’s class and corresponding dowry value [4, p. 160]. The specific values recorded are: Dato grades at 15 pikul ($300) and 10 pikul ($200); Pitu grades at 8 pikul ($160), 7 pikul ($140), and 6 pikul ($132) [4, pp. 159–160]. Children of mixed-class marriages are theoretically reduced one step in the social ladder; a child of a 15-pikul parent and a lower-class parent is valued at only 10 pikul [4, p. 160].

Beyond the dowry system, Headly describes several associated customs. Pelit, a reciprocal payment obligation between relatives of marrying parties, varies by class and is payable whether the child is male or female [4, p. 160]. Peramaian-Peramaian, a small collection from the groom’s guests, is distributed to the bride’s household helpers and rarely exceeds $10 in total [4, p. 160]. Benga (or Getasrirai) is a sum of $5–$10 handed by the groom’s father to the Master of Ceremonies, who then divides it among himself, the lecturer, and supporting elders [4, p. 161]. The groom’s side must supply oxen (sapi) for the wedding breakfast: 7 head for all Pitu grades and 10 head for all Dato grades, with a sapi valued at $4 for this purpose against a current market price of $70 per head [4, p. 160]. Marriages are parent-arranged but the children may object; elopement is handled through a respected intermediary who negotiates between the fathers; and the berian balance functions as a deterrent against hasty divorce [4, p. 160]. The article closes with a description of the Berunsai, a communal line-dance performed in the open-plan houses [4, p. 160].

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on marriage reveals a consistent pattern of colonial administrative and legal engagement with indigenous family structures, though the depth and method of inquiry varied considerably. The earliest and most substantial contribution is Braddell’s 1921 legal history, which draws on reported judgments, the Charters of Justice, and Staunton’s 1810 translation of the Manchu Code, but makes no use of Chinese-language primary sources—a limitation Braddell himself acknowledges [1, p. 165]. His position as a practitioner who had argued the very cases he analysed lends the article an advocacy quality that tempers its otherwise rigorous legal analysis [1, pp. 159].

The ethnographic contributions—Humphreys (1916), Winstedt (1929), and Headly (1951)—are all products of the colonial civil service, in which district officers and administrators recorded local customs for the Society’s journal [2, p. 25], [4, p. 159]. Their evidential bases are correspondingly limited: Humphreys relies on a single speaker’s memory, Winstedt on an undated Perak account of uncertain provenance, and Headly on direct observation and local informants in Kota Belud [2, p. 25], [3, p. 448], [4, p. 159]. None cites archival or documentary sources beyond the performative or testimonial material itself.

The chronological spread of these contributions—from Winstedt’s 1929 note on Perak betrothal to Headly’s 1951 account of Borneo dowry—suggests a gradual narrowing of interest. The early period saw the most ambitious treatments (Braddell’s century-spanning legal history, Humphreys’s full transcription of a ritual text), while the later contributions are briefer and more descriptive. No record in the Society’s literature addresses the economic dimensions of marriage at a macro level, nor does any attempt a comparative synthesis across the communities documented. The records thus preserve a valuable but fragmentary picture of marriage as it was observed and adjudicated in the colonial period, with the full weight of the evidence resting on the legal and ritual dimensions rather than on demographic or economic analysis.

MBRAS Sources

Law and customs

References

  1. R. Braddell (1921). Chinese marriages, as regarded by the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements JSBRAS 83: 153–165. Read on JSTOR
  2. J.L. Humphreys (1916). A Naning wedding-speech JSBRAS 72: 25–33.
  3. R.O. Winstedt (1929). An old Perak account of betrothal ceremonies JMBRAS 7(3): 448–450.
  4. D. Headly (1951). Some Illanun and Bajau marriage customs in the Kota Belud district, North Borneo JMBRAS 24(3): 159–160.