Malay Rulers: The symbol of Malay supremacy at the edge of relevance

Malay Rulers: The symbol of Malay supremacy at the edge of relevance.

I recently completed a book written by Syed Husin Ali titled ‘The Malay Rulers: Regression or Reform?’ and it ended with me having a conclusive emotion expressed in one word: Circus. Although there are numerous times where I found myself mentally ‘facepalm-ing’, too embarrassed by the extent of ridiculousness of my people, I must admit I am glad to be able to read on them. Of course, the book was not meant to degrade the position of the Malay rulers, but simply questioning their position in the modern state running on the system of dual governance.

There was a brief history on the beginnings of the Malay rulers and their significance pre-colonisation. There was an introduction to the concept of ‘Kedaulatan’ of the Sultans which led to other terms such as ‘Derhaka’ (disloyalty) introduced through the narrative of Demang Lebar Daun and Sri Tri Buana. The term ‘Slave Mentality’ certainly sees itself as a repeated theme throughout a book, one of the many outdated ideas that still persists till today. It begins with the people’s relationship with the Malay rulers thousands of years ago. Where the people would refer to themselves as ‘patik’ which means slave or dog and the term ‘menjujung duli’ which carries the meaning of ‘carrying the ruler’s feet on the head) is being used while addressing the ruler.

Colonisation came and it certainly challenges the long tradition of ‘Kedaulatan’ of the rulers. British residents in various states slowly took over administrative duties and in some cases, driven by their greed for power had come up with plans to strip the Malay rulers from their governing power. This does not come with no retaliation, British resident in Perak  J W W Birch was stabbed to death with a spear at the Perak River after ignoring the warning given by Pasir Salak chieftan Maharaja Lela whom refused to accept the authority of Birch. There were also many other well-known rebels hailing from different states, people like Tok Janggut from Kelantan and Tok Gajah and Mat Kilau from Pahang.

Side note: The term ‘Maharajalela’ is a term to describe someone whom do as he pleases in Bahasa Melayu. Many would not know that Maharaja Lela is an actual historical figure. It has been argued that the term ‘Maharajalela’ was introduced by the British as an insult to the Malays due to the murder of their resident.

The colonial presence in Malaya has also witnessed great changes in the movements of hierarchy in the traditional court of the Malay rulers. There were a couple of incidents where the rightful heir to the throne was ousted and being replaced by a more favourable candidate by the British. The dethroning of Sultan Ali of Terengganu, an Oxford educated sultan who had shown ‘aversions towards British colonial rule’ who was later replaced by the uncle of Terengganu’s chief minister Dato’ Jaya Perkasa whom the British garnered strong suppprt from.

Our independence in 1957 opens a new phase in the chapter of the Malay rulers world. Here there are faced with new challenges in keeping their relevance in the system of modern governance. The importance and relevance of the traditional Malay rulers are being questioned even further. Could the country survive if the tradition of Malay rulers were abolished? Or is it important to integrate the old into the new for as long as we could as to upkeep the ‘special position and supremacy’ of the Malays as a whole?

Wardah Mohamad

June 2015