Article

Tunku Kudin: a scribe’s defence

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Tunku Kudin: a scribe’s defence

Khoo Khay Jin’s 1990 article presents and analyses a previously neglected Malay manuscript (SOAS MS 46943) that offers the “losing” side’s perspective on the Kedah succession crisis of 1879–1882, arguing that the text should be read not as a straightforward factual record but as a window into the legitimating ideology of Kedah’s ruling circles regarding succession and their relationship with Siam. The article challenges the Siamese-centric narrative dominant in the literature and demonstrates that the notion of local ruling-circle consent (muafakat) as the mark of legitimate succession was a shared ideological premise, not merely a late 19th-century development.

Summary

The article centres on a short Malay manuscript, part of W.E. Maxwell’s collection (SOAS MS 46943), obtained between 1887 and 1889 when Maxwell was Acting Resident Councillor in Penang, where Tunku Kudin had taken up residence in self-exile. The manuscript, titled “The rules and order of succession of the raja-raja of negeri Kedah, from Sultan Mohammad Jiwa down to the present,” constructs an idealised narrative of orderly, consensus-based succession from Sultan Mohammad Jiwa (1710–1778) through to Sultan Zainal Rashid II, then argues that the accession of Sultan Abdul Hamid in 1882 broke this tradition by being imposed by Bangkok in defiance of the notables’ (orang besar-besar) preference for Tunku Kudin. The text further alleges that Abdul Hamid immediately consolidated his position by resuming revenue farms granted to Tunku Kudin and Tunku Yusuf, and that Tunku Yaakob sacked all penghulu appointed by Tunku Yusuf in Kuala Muda and Kerian without cause.

Khoo’s central methodological argument is that the manuscript’s idealisation of earlier successions — virtually all of which were in fact disputed or violent — should not disqualify it as a source. Rather, the text’s value lies in revealing the shared legitimating discourse of Kedah’s ruling stratum: that a sultan’s authority derived from the consent and concurrence of the notables, and that Bangkok’s role was one of ratification, not nomination. This directly challenges Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian’s characterisation of Siam’s “suzerain right to nominate and/or approve a candidate to the sultanship.” Khoo supports this reading by cross-referencing the court history of Muhammad Hassan and at least one version of the Kedah Laws, which exhibit a homology in their accounts of how a sultan is chosen. The manuscript also provides unique glimpses into the political and economic organisation of late 19th-century Kedah, including the extent of power accruing to control of the centre, the significance of the penghulu stratum, and the degree to which centralisation of state power was advanced under Abdul Hamid relative to his father.

The article also corrects a genealogical error in the existing literature: Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah (1854–1879) should properly be listed as Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin III, not II, as both Gullick and Kobkua had done. Khoo substantiates this with evidence from Bassett’s work on 18th-century Kedah, a letter of appointment in Raffles Ms. Malay 77 dated 1149 AH/1736 AD, and a penghulu appointment letter in SOAS Ms. 40505.

Key Findings

  • Tunku Kudin served as “number 2” (nombor 2) to Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin III for 18 years, receiving the padi and rice revenues and boat pass revenues for “negeri Kedah” (likely the royal district of Kota Setar), while Tunku Yaakob received the liquor farm for Kota Setar and Tunku Yusuf the revenues from Kerian (pp. 60, 67).
  • Tunku Zainal Rashid II died on 27 Syawal 1298 (1879) without issue; Tunku Kudin departed for Bangkok on 1 Zulhijjah 1298 with three of the late sultan’s brothers, arriving 18 Zulhijjah 1298, and was subsequently informed that the King of Siam had appointed Abdul Hamid as Sultan in his own right, abolishing the regency (pp. 61–62, 72–73).
  • The manuscript records that Tunku Yaakob personally went to Kuala Muda and Kerian, sacked all penghulu appointed by Tunku Yusuf, issued a directive that the people obey only Abdul Hamid and Yaakob, and appointed Syed Hussein and Abdul Rahman as heads of Kuala Muda district (pp. 63, 74).
  • Khoo corrects the regnal numbering: Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah (1854–1879) is properly Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin III, corroborated by an 1893 copy of the Kedah Laws, Che Mustafa bin Tam’s typescript history, the 1957 official Kedah genealogy, and Bassett’s reference to a 1707 appeal to Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah (pp. 58–59).
  • The manuscript lists seven sons of Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin III by two wives: four by Wan Khatijah (of Patani royal descent) and three by Wan Hajar (daughter of the Kedah minister Wan Ismail), with Tunku Abdul Hamid being the third-born overall (p. 74).
  • The manuscript’s account of the succession of Ahmad Tajuddin III in 1854 — appointed and installed by the notables without reference to Bangkok, who was notified only subsequently — provides direct evidence against the claim that Siam held an undisputed right of nomination (pp. 59–60).

Conclusion

Khoo’s definitive takeaway is that the manuscript’s significance resides not in its factual accuracy regarding earlier successions but in the ideological framework it reveals: that the consent of the local ruling circle, not Bangkok’s approval, constituted the ultimate mark of legitimacy in Kedah’s political culture. The text demonstrates that this shared ideology — and the acceptance of its legitimacy — was reflected across multiple Malay sources and was not a late 19th-century innovation but a persistent feature of Kedah’s legitimating discourse, even if in practice it was “more honoured in the breach.”

Context

  • Primary archival collections explored: SOAS MS 46943 (Maxwell collection, School of Oriental and African Studies), Muhammad Hassan’s Al-tarikh Salasilah Kerajaan Negeri Kedah (1928, jawi edition), the Kedah Laws (1893 copy), Wan Yahya’s Salasilah atau Tawarikh Kerajaan Kedah (1911), and Sultan Abdul Hamid’s correspondence (1299–1331/1882–1912) held in the Kedah Branch of the Arkib Negara Malaysia.
  • Historiographical contribution: challenges the Siamese-centric interpretation of Kedah succession advanced by Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian and argues for the weight of Malay sources as discourse on a par with Thai, colonial, and newspaper accounts, responding to Gullick’s call to “write the Kedah viewpoint.”

References