Urbanism, place and culture in the Malay world: The politics of domain from pre-colonial to post colonial era

City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

City, Culture and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs

Urbanism, place and culture in the Malay world: The politics of domain from pre-colonial to post colonial era Bagoes Wiryomartono Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai Campus, Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 March 2012 Received in revised form date 23 April 2013 Accepted 17 May 2013 Available online 1 July 2013 Keywords: Urbanism Society Culture Malay world Place History

a b s t r a c t This study is to explore and examine the sense of place in the Malay world. The purpose is to unfold and unveil the aspects and characteristics of what and why place is. This study is expected as a contribution to theory of landscape design and the built environment. In what extent is the place able to carry out and sustain its function and meaning for urbanism? Scrutinizing and examining concepts related to the phenomena of building and dwelling will be the focus of this essay. The aim is to recognize the sense of place for local people observed from planning and design perspective on what they call it as home. The study is carried out from the author fieldwork in the region from 2010 to 2013. The data were collected with participant observation as the author’s life and work experience, supported by literary sources. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Malay world Pre history of habitation in the Malay Peninsula was a long story of empty land except small populations, which were probably descendants of Hoabinhian hunter-gatherers known as orang asli (see also Andaya & Andaya, 1982, p. 9; Bulbeck, 1996, p. 52). However, most ancient populations in Southeast Asia shared similar linguistic and anthropological traces (pp. 21–40); they lived on the house on stilts, grew rice and millet, domesticated animals, betel chewing, sailed with outrigger vessels, did tattooing for their adult skin with ink, weaved their clothes, moulded and burnt their pottery. The Malay world today is the sociocultural and historical habitation system of the multiethnic populations in today Malaysia that geopolitically takes place in the areas of former British colony, from the Southeast Asian Peninsula to Sabah and Serawak regions in the Island of Borneo/Kalimantan. Historically, the Malay Peninsula was the land of immigrants; most of them came from the regions of Southeast Asia archipelago, India, and China. Ethnically speaking, the Malay world has been plural and the concept of identity has been always challenging because of this historical fact.

E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-9166/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2013.05.004

The root of the sense of place in this country is likely the necessity for dealing with differences with geographically shared domains, instead of trying intentionally to integrate all in a common space. Since the British colonial era, each racial group has been running their own school based on their values and beliefs system. How people from different backgrounds interact and communicate? The Malay language has been working well as their platform because of its simple grammatical order. Since the 15th century, the Malay language has been functioning well for traders and merchants in the region (Ammon, 2006, p. 2014). It is not surprisingly, people in the region, –regardless their origin and background, – understand and know the Malay language as bahasa orang pasar – the language of people in the market place. From this fact, the sharing of meanings for places and domains is made possible by all ethnic groups. Even though the geographical realms of those who speak, read, write, and understand the Malay language does not restrict the Malay world, most ethnic populations in the Malay Peninsula as well as in the archipelago have practiced the bahasa melayu since the pre-colonial times either for daily interaction or for international trade (see also Grime, 1996, pp. 719–20). However, the Malay world in this study is limited only for the phenomenon of habitation in the country of today Malaysia.

218

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

Indeed, the variety of customs and tradition does exist in the Malay Peninsula in terms of arts, designs, and culinary. However, on cultural values they hold to similar principles in the context of nilai-nilai murni or original virtues (Subramaniam, 2008; Baba, 2009, p. 180). Most of the virtues are well conserved in the form of poems, idioms, and proverbs. In this case, the Malay language is the house of intrinsic meanings and messages. The existence of the Malay world takes place in various built environments that consists of house, village, urban areas and places. Each place has its unique uses and designs that build, establish, maintain, and sustain habitation. The Malay speaking populations used to live in various places of the Southeast Asian archipelago. Traditionally, their settlements are organized with a village polity called kampung (Ghazali in Blunnel, Parthasarathy, & Thompson, 2013, p. 122). Houses for the Malay speaking populations are architecturally simple single detached house with gable roof form. Bamboo and timber are common material they use for the house construction. In the Malay Peninsula, all habitations take place on the land of kampung as a common property. The village assembly and the village head have the right to assign the spot of the house for village households. Commonly, the head of the village has a privilege to occupy a strategic place for his home so that he can oversee and control the territory visually. The traditional Malay world is the world without domination of land by any proprietor. The origin of land claim as property or wealth had never happened until the British colonial empire controlled the different areas of the Malay world. As a phenomenon of habitation, place in the Malay world is a historical and sociocultural realm that develops and sustains unique customs and traditions. Contextuality in this respect is more than just a network of relations but it includes local values and potentials that work and fit well in its environment and society. The relationship between place and people in the Malay tradition is understood under the notion of adat istiadat, literally meaning customary laws. Each place has its own adat istiadat, because place is always associated with the built environment or man-made domain with sociocultural habitation. In the Malay speaking world, the words for space and place have different meaning. The Malay concept for space is angkasa; it is not to signify a domain or room. Space in this sense is indefinite entity, without boundary, and open. On the contrary to space is room; the Malay word for room is ruang meaning confinement, domain, and space in between. Ruang is potentially occupied area with specific use and design, which is usually for people or things. Since the British colonial era, the use of the land has been being regulated and administered by the state. Unlike the Portuguese empire in Malacca, the British colonial rule regulated and administered the land by using and maintaining relationship with the indigenous rulers. The colonial practice of the British Empire since the period of Sir Stamford Raffles was unique, which was based on the concept of defeating the local rulers, then bringing them for treaty agreement, and controlling the commercial interest in their regions. The British colonial power had achieved the full control over the Malay world in 1874; the Malay sultans signed the Pangkor Treaty authorizing the British to govern the land and its resources under the British com-

mon laws system. This treaty is considerably the turning point of formal relationship between the British and the Malay States (Andaya & Andaya, 1982, p. 157). Nevertheless, the Pangkor Treaty confirms that the British colonial officers are the primary economic and administrative advisors of the Royal Malay households (Gullick, 1969, p. 53). The relationship between the British colonial administration and the Malay sultanates was actually quite formal in a strictly business relationship. The British was subtly acting as the protector and trustee. The Malay rulers were not able to manage the territorial economy without any advice and direction from the British officers. Moreover, the practice of colonialism by the British was based on the principle of ‘‘divide and rule” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 32). In doing so, the British rule left various ethnic groups beyond the Malay populations, – such as Chinese and Tamil people, – in their own worlds. As formulated with such a treaty, the British colonialism held ‘‘the divide and rule” government business (Khan, 2006, p. 140) and stayed away from adat and religious affairs. In this case, the British is in charge for government matters while the Sultanates take care for religious and sociocultural affairs. With such a treaty, the British had actually taken over the political control of the Malay sultanates over their land and resources. What was left for the Malay sultanates was likely nothing but their symbolic authority on indigenous culture, customs, and traditions. Since 1895, economically and politically, the land was not under the control of the Malay states, but under the British centrally bureaucratic authority in Kuala Lumpur. However, the use of the areas beyond the already occupied lands by the indigenous or Malay people remained as it was. The British had more interest in opening opportunities of the uncultivated land for plantations. In its practice, the British colonialism in the Malay world can be divided into three categories (Lange, 2006, pp. 184–5). The first was a direct trade control over the three city-colonies: Penang, Malacca, and Singapore. The second was the direct political control over the nine Federated Malay States: Selangor, Perak, Kelantan, Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Perlis, Kedah, Terengganu, and Pahang in 1895. The third was indirect political control over the Non-federated Malay States, such as Serawak and Sabah, between 1909 and 1914. Even though the Dutch had controlled Malacca and other parts of the Malay world since the mid of 17th century, the Dutch VOC did not intervene into the local affairs of the Malay states. Indeed, the Dutch and the British were in competition for the commercial control of the Straits of Malacca since early the 17th century. The Dutch VOC in Malacca did not penetrate into agricultural business, but more focused on commercial trade control at the coastal areas of the archipelago (De Witt, 2007, p. XVIII). Indeed, the expansion of Dutch and British colonialism into the agricultural business took place in the midst of the 19th century, when coffee, tea, rubber, and tobacco became worldwide commodities in European market. Tempat General concept for place in the Malay speaking world is tempat meaning literally location, site, container or

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

something to fill in. The design of tempat has to comply with the content. As container, tempat is not only for human beings and things, but it includes also the invisible, the inaudible, and the inexhaustible (Tim Pengembang Ilmu Pendidikan FIP UPI, 2007, pp. 390–1). Tempat is inclusive for the known and the ‘unknown’ as well as for the material and spiritual world. The Malay beliefs system acknowledges that every being has spirit, semangat; the beliefs roots in the ancient animism of the Austronesians (see also Reid in Bellwood, Fox, & Tyron, 1995, p. 341). The notion of tempat has been always intentional and functional. There is no tempat for nothing and without peace; it has something to do with life and the world. As a container and location as well, tempat is not empty but it is believed to contain a spirit or power; this beliefs dated back to Animism (Frisk, 2009, p. 102). Regarding its unique function and relationship with specific site, the concept of tempat is elaborated as tempatan in its use for depicting locality and contextuality. Human settlement is commonly understood with the concept of tempat tinggal meaning literally place to stay. In traditional way, the Malay tradition calls the place to stay as tempat duduk or the place of seat. Home for Malay tradition is identical with the place of seat. The smallest unit of habitation is the place of family seat called rumah. Rumah Rumah is house, home, and place to stay. The idea of rumah in the Malay culture is deeply rooted in the existence of household and family. The basic condition of design for a rumah is the necessity for having a hearth, dapur, veranda, beranda, and living area, rumah ibu. Traditional Malay house is built on stilts. The Malay house is architecturally adaptive to tropical climate with high humidity and heavy rainfall or monsoon between September and March season (see also Asiapac Editorial, 2003, p. 81; Lim, 2011). The main part of the house is called rumah ibu, which is literally meaning the mother’s home. House in Malay tradition is also associated with mother and women in terms of orang rumah meaning literally somebody taking care the house and home. The living area, rumah ibu, occupies the most part of the house plan. The use of the room is actually multipurpose.

219

During the day, female house members occupy the room. In many cases, parents build their bedroom inside rumah ibu domain. The hearth of the house is constructed at the rear part whilst the front side is for reception hall called beranda. Unlike the rear part, the front area is an open structure defined with perimeter railing structure (Fig. 1). The modern house in Malaysia is mostly not built in traditional way, either in terms of design, construction and building material. Unlike the traditional home, the modern house is developed and constructed with rational and pragmatic approach. The evolution and transformation of house form and design is in the line of the best practice for affordability and technicality. Industrially fabricated components are commonly used in the building system of modern housing development. The modern plan is architecturally drawn from the appropriateness of owner’s budget, rational form, practical construction, and appropriateness with municipal regulatory requirements. In contrast, to traditional houses, modern houses have to comply with building codes for safety, security, and health. Even though the architecture of the traditional and modern houses is barely similar, they seemingly share the same value in honouring the guests in the house. In Malay tradition, guests are necessarily treated with honour and dignity. In traditional houses, guests are welcomed in beranda, a veranda with open views and outdoor environment. Most modern houses do not have veranda for safety reason; they provide the guest room inside with special design treatment. Urban houses are built and situated within an architecturally planned system of neighbourhood. The relation of the house to others in Malaysian urban areas is, of course, not like in traditional way. Most houses today belong to a neighbourhood system or a residential complex. The common types of house in Malaysia are terrace houses, live-works, apartments, and condominiums. The terrace houses vary in their form from bungalow, duplex, triplex, quadplex, and row arrangement. Terrace in Malay word is laman meaning literally a yard, field, or open space. Terrace house is rumah with laman where family can use it as play ground, flower garden or multipurpose uses. Today, modern houses in urban areas have various types: single-detached, semi-detached, row houses, multifamily mid-rise, and high-rise residential. The transformation of design has been taking place since the colonial times until nowadays. The most crucial part of the transformation happens in the elaboration of living area of the house, which is traditionally known as rumah ibu meaning literally home of mother. This particular part has been being developed and elaborated to accommodate new needs for home entertainments, new appliances, and furniture. Unlike the traditional houses, modern Malay homes are subject to be integrated with a planned community in terms of mukim or taman. Kampung, Mukim, and Taman

Fig. 1. Malay Traditional House of the 18th century redrawn by author, courtesy of the Malacca Museum.

Traditionally kampung in Malaysia is an ethnically homogenous community and village settlement with a socio-political institution. Based on its history and political organization, the origin of kampung as a community and settlement was originated from the Austronesian wanua (Simanjuntak, 2006, p. 228). The traditional organization

220

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

is an egalitarian body with customary laws, adat that becomes a system of ethics and aesthetics for the whole villagers. The elders sit together in a village assembly to maintain, and sustain their customary laws. Customs and traditions demonstrate how adat works in the village (Abu Bakar, 2002, pp. 117–9). Sanctions against adat are social and economic punishment in terms of fine or inclusion from village activities. The chief of traditional village, penghulu, is usually an elder of customary laws with hereditary successors (Osman, 1985, p. 60). The assembly of elders guards the moral orders and ethical conducts and manners in the village social life. The authority of the village chief needs the confirmation and consensus of the assembly that includes the right to stay and work in the village. Even though the land is a common property, the traditional right to build a house in a traditional village is the married status of the couple according to adat. The sense of place in traditional sense is impossible without the confirmation of customary laws, adat. Today, village heads in rural areas are less powerful than during the Pre Colonial times; they are today the representatives and officers of the state. The British colonial rule changed the political status of kampung from an independent village republic to be part of the state administrative structure. Consequently, villagers in rural areas and urban citizens are now not to elect their leaders for their penghulu. The state will take care for the officers who will supervise them within the framework of Jawatan Kuasa Kampung, office for political affair of kampung. Every neighbourhood should have a penghulu for socio-political and cultural affairs, and an amil or ustadz for Islamic religious affairs; they represent the state for this community. The land of traditional kampung is a communal property. Group of people originally developed the land by opening the forest. They worked together on voluntarily basis from the site clearing to house construction. The boundary of the land was never a wall-like structure, but a natural area where they are able to plant fruits and vegetables, or to domesticate animals for their livestock. In many cases, urban populations were originally migrants from other places in the archipelago and other places in China and India. The evolution of kampung from its mode of production took place in the Malay world with various histories. The ancient kampung was characterized with the mode of production based on hunting and gathering as well as forest slash and burn for their paddy. The populations of ancient villages in Malaysia are well known as orang asli or the aborigines who mostly live and work in the hinterland forest of the Malay Peninsula. The other kind of kampung is an agriculture based community who cultivate wet-rice production; most populations are migrants from various places in the archipelago and Southeast Asian mainland. In contrast to the kampung orang asli, the agricultural based kampung is a dynamic community with various occupations and division of labour. Most urban settlements in the Malay world were the outcome of such kampungs with various adjustments from agricultural production to services and commercial activities. In rural regions, the area of land within the community of kampung is a communally confined territory; no one owns the land, but they may use and share the land on

mutually understanding basis. In many cases, the extension of house or building a new construction is subject to the approval of the village assembly. The meeting of elders will determine and choose the location and schedule of voluntarily work for the construction. The Colonial rule has changed the status of the land of kampung. Their land is claimed to the property of the state, and they have to pay the property tax to the government. The concept of neighbourhood has evolved from kampung to mukim. This evolution took place after the transformation of state/governance system from Hindu negara to Islamic sultanate. The transformations took place in almost parts of the Malay world between the 16th and 17th century. This was the period when intensive commercial interactions between the indigenous populations and the Arab and Persian traders and scholars took place in most coastal settlements along the Straits of Malacca. The Arab and Persian traders introduced the concept of mukim as a settlement unit consisting of a community centre, houses, and educational institution. The heart of the mukim is the mosque. The other facilities in the community centre area are the commercial place for grocery and convenient goods, runcit, and schools, madrasah. The common population of a mukim is 500–5000 populations or 100– 1000 households. During the adoption of Islam by the states, mukim, became the administrative institution of kampung in urban areas. The inclusion of kampung into a state administrative status was signified with the institutionalization of mukim as a settlement unit of town, kota, or city, bandar. The concept of mukim as an urban neighbourhood unit had been established and developed in Islamic state of Samudra Pasai Aceh since the early 14th century. Acehnese concept of mukim is still in existence until today in various towns and cities. The most important thing of mukim lies in its socio-political structure that incorporates Islamic principles for civil society based on social justice and equality. To certain extent, Islamic teaching puts the feudalistic and bureaucratic state in question (Weiss in Hasan and Weiss (Eds.), 2012, p. 140). However, by the inclusion of mukim into state administrative system, the other necessity of community’s life, such as safety, protection, and welfare, has deemed, and diminished such question. The head of mukim in Aceh and in the Malay world was a state officer; he and the religious clerics, ustadz worked together to lead the populations of mukim for being loyal and supportive to the state; the highest authority of religious and sociocultural affairs is the Sultan of the respective state. The mukim in the British colonial times did not change its dependent status on the state. However, the British restricted the authority of the Malay states over their mukims, which was only for sociocultural and religious matters. Political and economic matters of the mukims were under control of the British colonial authority. Today, taman is a common notion for a neighbourhood or subdivision in Malaysia nowadays (Fig. 2). In Johor Bahru, the structure and layout of the neighbourhood consisting of pair of terrace row houses with a back lane; the row usually comprises 8–12 houses, depending on the house type and income category. The basic principle for the neighbourhood planning is the applicable density for residential use in the area. Commonly, the density of

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

Fig. 2. Taman Mutiara Rini Bird Eye’s view courtesy of rinihills.blogspot.com.

neighbourhood is 24–36 residential units per hectare including roads, back lane, open spaces, local shops, playgrounds, mosque, and schools. A standard taman neighbourhood or subdivision comprises 1600–2000 residential units in various housing types covering the area of 60– 120 ha. The most problematic issue of the neighbourhood is building a strong community based on multiethnic components. Taman is an experiment of modern planning and design. Blocks in the neighbourhood try to accommodate houses for various ethnic groups with certain proportion. In doing so, Chinese, Indian, and Malay populations are able to live side by side in the same block. In Johor Bahru suburban areas such experiment has been implemented since 1990s without a serious case of violence and conflict. Indeed, building a social capital at the neighbourhood level is still far from the reality of various urban areas in this country (Gong, 2001, p. 146). In this point, the sense of place in the context of neighbourhood is the work in progress because at this level, sociocultural cohesiveness of interethnic populations has not yet found a common platform but informal interactions in public places and certain higher educations. Even though sports, modern arts and performances have the chance to be the platform of such interactions, these activities do not take place in average and ordinary neighbourhoods. Bandar and Kota The Pre Colonial town in the Malay world was known as kota, meaning literally settlement with surrounding wall; the main support of ancient settlements was the agricultural communities with wet rice cultivation (Wheatley, 1983). The introduction to the concept of state was probably from Indic civilization of the third or fifth century; the heritage of Indic Hindu Buddhist influence was found in Langkasuka and Gangga Negara (Maguin, 2000; JacqHergoualc’h, 2002). Even though the exact locations of both kingdoms have not yet found conclusively, Chinese records, and several artefacts in the Bujang valley areas between Thailand and Malaysia confirmed the existence of both negaras.

221

Today the notion of kota is still in existence, though the meaning has been transformed. Pre-colonial kota is usually to address an urban settlement with agricultural support. However, nowadays the concepts of kota and bandar are interchangeably without specific meaning. Nevertheless, the most important institutions of kota were two: istana and pekan. Istana is the seat of the ruler whilst pekan is a five-day period or permanent market. The establishment of istana is to confirm the existence of a political authority of state form. The Malay capital state has always istana. Architecturally, the location of istana usually takes place on the hill or high terrain with splendour views to various compass direction. As the seat of the ruler, istana is a complex consisting of houses, halls, open places, and other supporting buildings. The main hall of istana called dewan raya is the place where the sultan and his ministries meet for state deliberations and receptions of state visitors. After having embraced Islam in ca. 15th century, each capital city of state has provided its urban architecture with a great mosque, masjid raya or masjid negara. Even though the location of this building is necessarily accessible for public, its preferably position is close to istana. The topographical site determines the best location of the mosque that needs open area for outdoor large congregation. Such an open field, medan is also important for state ceremonies, rituals, and annual celebrations for Raya Ied, and Raya Adha. Nevertheless, a town or city is an economic centre for exchanges of commodities, goods, and livestock. Kota is never in existence without pekan. The location of pekan is usually close to several kampungs or mukims. In traditional way, pekan is the centre of urban settlement; in many cases, its position lies in the intersections of the arterial roads. The number of pekan in a town or a city shows its populations; a small town with six thousand populations has probably only one market. After the adoption of Islam as state religion, the concept of pekan has evolved from a five-day period of market day to everyday market called pasar. The concept of pasar is originally from the Persian word bazaar, a place for gatherings and exchanges. The pre-colonial intensive contacts and trades with international merchants were between the 12th and 15th century. During those periods, Melaka at the East as well as Kuala Brang in Terengganu at the West became the meeting points between Arabic–Persian–Indian traders and Chinese counterparts. It was probably the formative times for the urban characteristics of the Malay Peninsular bandars. Multicultural populations grew significantly during the periods mentioned above. Economic collaboration among Malay, Chinese, and Indian populations works at the neighbourhood, municipal, and national level. The most popular notion is Ali-Baba business (Keat, 2009, pp. 16–7). The notion means a partnership between Malay natives (bumiputera) and Chinese persons; this business collaboration was actually in response to the Malaysian New Economic Policy (1971– 1990). The states gave most contracts to the Malay natives. With such a partnership was in the expectation that the Malay business people were able to learn the skills and expertises from the Chinese and Indian populations; both ethnic groups have been familiar with hardworking and competitive enterprise since colonial times. Indeed, giving

222

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

privilege to certain populations in the country is likely unhealthy for the long-run business because such a practice will weaken the competitiveness of Malay natives, locally and globally. However, under current administration such a practice is still in effect (BBC News 11/07/2011).1 Today, the concept of kota has been replaced by bandar. The idea of bandar is originally from the Persian word bandar, which means crowd, port, exchange, and gathering. Bandar represents more about the concept of open urban settlement for international interactions. Indeed, history of bandar is the evolution and amalgamation of multicultural interactions and communications at the coastal vicinities. The phenomenon of bandar reveals and unveils the acculturation of various culture, traditions, and customs with the exchange of communities as its core activity. Prior to the arrival of the Indian, Arab and Persian traders and merchants, coastal areas and settlements in the Straits of Malacca had been crowded by Chinese traders and workers who emigrated from the mainland China to various coastal areas in Southeast Asia. They came to the Malay world in different periods. Gradually, the Chinese populated most coastal settlements and contributed to the liveable socioeconomic activities with Chinese gastronomies, design, medicine, manners, fashions, styles, customs, and traditions. Chinese populations in the Straits of Malacca regions came from various classes and backgrounds. This diverse milieu and backdrop prepared and developed the settlement of bandar to be economically and culturally open for all nations. Malacca in the period between the 15th and 16th century was probably the most highly populated city in the Malay world with Chinese populations who spoke Hokkien and Chaozhou. Even though the interactions with the indigenous Malay populations were less intensive, the presence of Chinese community brought about the city liveable in terms of street life and commercial exchanges. Some Chinese populations adopted Islam as their beliefs system; some remained with their own Confucian tradition and way of life. The history of Chinese presence in the Malay world was unique for the formation of urbanism because it marked out the beginning of global encounter and interaction based on fair and peaceful relationship. The Chinese contribution to the urban form in Malacca, Penang, and other places in the Malay world was obviously known from the establishment of shophouses that defined the street space and urban block structure. The historical Chinese settlement in various bandars demonstrated an architecturally adaptive design in dealing with high density living. Chinese shophouses exemplified the design solution and treatment for a compact and highly concentrated urban settlement. In the art of living, the Chinese culture enhanced and elaborated the local Malay tradition to live with furniture and the use of porcelains in the household habitation. The presence of Chinese populations in the Malay urban life has enriched and enhanced the urban experience in the Malay world with unique architecture, pottery, culinary, street life, festivals, and celebrations. The blend and

1 http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/41919-malaysias-ali-baba-system-causes-ethnic-tension (BBC News 11/07/2011), retrieved on February 24, 2012.

acculturation between Chinese and Malay culture and tradition in various urban settlements in the Malay world have brought about new things and events, such as babanyonya phenomenon in Malacca (Wan Teh, 2011, p. 32). Foods, clothes, architecture, and language are the vivid examples and evidences of this phenomenon. Moreover, Chinese and Malay culture shares similar values for manners and respect to elderly persons and ancestors; of course, they have the differences as well, but they can live with it based on mutual respect and tolerance. In similar ways, the intensive contacts and interactions with Muslim traders and scholars since the 15th century have led the Malay and Chinese populations to be more open for differences. The contribution of the Arabs and Persians to urban life in the Malay world included poetry, Arabic literacy, culinary, medicine, and Islamic culture. Arabic musical instruments and melody contributed to the formation and development of the Malay gambus and gajal musics. Architecturally speaking, the Arab and Persian presence did not impose their building tradition for mosque or surau in the Malay world. The strong influence of Arabic culture on Malay populations includes madrasah, calligraphy, Al Qur’an recital, and fashion. Calligraphic arts decorate most interior walls of surau and mosques, while madrasah becomes the centre of Islamic education for the Malay children. Prior to the 19th century, mosques were not built with dome structure. Earlier mosques from the 17th century such as in Kampung Laut, Kampung Halu, and Tangkera were constructed with local architecture (Fig. 3). Islamic teaching did not dictate local populations to build their surau and mosque with Arabic or Persian or Gujarati architecture. The architecture of surau and mosque was a local and practical matter that was in the hand of local community. Since Islam is not a clerically organized religion, each kampung had a freedom to express and articulate the design and construction of surau and mosque according to local conditions and context. Prior to British Colonial administration, surau and mosque are independent from state; the local community of kampung took care and upheld the socio-religious activities with their own. Some rich merchants, orang kaya, in the

Fig. 3. Mosque of Kampung Keling in Malacca, photograph by author.

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

kampung donated and supported the function of surau and mosque. Kampung was usually provided with an assembly of leaders called majlis, which was responsible for socioreligious matters. Pre Colonial states did not take control over kampung activities. What was important for the state was that kampungs and other settlements paid annual tribute of land production, hasil, other tolls and taxes of commercial transactions,cukai, to the state treasury, bendahara. Of course, paying tribute to the state was a sign of loyalty. In return, the state protected and guarded the populations for their safety and social order. The highest authority for state police was tumenggung who stood with bendahara,state treasury, as the highest rank state officers of the Malay sultanate. In many maritime states such as Malacca (1405–1511), there were at least four highest-ranking officers at the Sultanate bureaucracy: tumenggung, bendahara, laksamana, Navy commander, and Syahbandar, Port authority. Traditionally, most syahbandars were Chinese persons. Prior to 1511, the city of Malacca had at least four syahbandars authorizing certain ethnic areas and commodities. Prior to the 16th century, the Chinese traders dominated the commercial activities in the Malay world for agricultural products, tin mining and plantations; they usually occupied the strategic area at the downstream and developed their settlement there. At the downstream, the Chinese bosses cultivated white pepper, nutmeg, onion, and garlic; all these were important commodities for international trades. Indeed, the Chinese interest in business with Southeast Asia was more than just spices; bird nest, rattan, dammar, rubber blood, and coconut belonged to the demanded commodities in China. In return, the Chinese merchants delivered silk, gold, and porcelains. The presence of Chinese populations was mostly part of the peace agreement between the Chinese Ming emperors and the local rulers for trades; the Chinese navy protected the straits of Malacca for safe and fair trades in the Malay ports. In return, the Malay state of Malacca allowed Chinese migrants living and working in the city free of taxes. Occasionally, exchanges of tributes and presents, cindramata, took place between the Chinese Emperor and the Malay Sultanate. Since early of the 16th century, the situation was changed, the Chinese Emperor withdrew their military presence significantly in Straits of Malacca and South China Sea due to the inner crises in the top rule. The success of the Portuguese sea power was mostly supported by the absence of Chinese sea power on the Straits of Malacca after the decline of the Ming dynasties with its peak in 1587 (Huang, 1982). The fall of Malacca was important evidence on the dependency of the Malay State on the protection of Chinese emperor. After the Portuguese took control over Malacca in 1511, the military authority burnt down all the heritage of the Malay Sultanate on the Malacca hill. They began to erect and establish the fortification known as A Fomosa on the former site of the Malacca Sultanate palace area. The Portuguese dug a canal connecting between the river of Malacca and the straits of Malacca, separating the A Fomosa from the mainland of Malacca. The intervention of Portuguese power in urbanism was to destroy the Malay state which was inseparable from the establishment of their trade post in Southeast Asia as well as the Catholic missionary founding. Like the Chinese

223

presence, the Portuguese deployed their sailors, traders, merchants, and Catholic missionaries in the city of Malacca, mingling with the indigenous populations. Socioeconomic interactions began to be more intensive when Portuguese population from other parts of the route to Europe, such as from Goa, Mozambique, Cape Town came to Malacca to set up their business and established their Catholic churches. Portuguese military post in Malacca controlled the port for custom duties and represented the Portuguese authority in Southeast Asia during the period between 1511 and 1645. Unlike the Spanish Empire, which established a municipal government, ciudades and villa de espanoles, at their colonialized territory, the Portuguese did little for this matter (Newitt, 1986, p. 54). Since 1511, more and more local and Chinese merchants avoided to do business in Malacca. They moved to other places and kept distance from the Portuguese control. The other European presence in the Malay urban settlements was the Dutch. The contribution of the Dutch in urban development was obvious in the city of Malacca after they took over from the Portuguese in 1641. The Dutch overlaid or did infill the given site with their facilities and urban institutions, and they did not destroy or demolished the previous Portuguese buildings, but readjusted, modified, and reused with similar function. In the context of urbanism, the Dutch valued a compact settlement, and concentrated their effort around their fortified garrison. The Dutch established a colonial town authority and built their city hall, called Stadthuys at the inner city of Malacca. The Dutch settlement was developed at the west side or the river of Malacca. A bridge was rebuilt to connect the Stadthuys and the Dutch settlement. Shophouses and row houses established a new urban block system with stone paved streets and drainages. The street and building structure remains the same until today with significant improvement in the quality of its building construction. The Dutch introduced to the Malay world an urban row housing system that supported the city with a compact form. The influx of Dutch populations to Malacca from various places of the East Indies and other colonies took place between the 18th and 19th century. During the period, the Dutch did not include the Portuguese descendant village, Chinese and indigenous settlements within the jurisdiction of Dutch law system. Instead of integrating such settlements into their municipal system, the Dutch kept and authorized such settlements having their own customs and traditions; however, the Dutch rule controlled the political and economic activities of such settlements. The primary concern of the Dutch at the mid of the 18th and early of the 19th century was to control the opium business. After 1895, the British took over the control of the economy in the Malay world. The European colonialism was extended with the separation between state affairs and religious and cultural matters. More importantly for the economy was the abolishment of slavery in many regions under the British control. The slaves in the Malay world were mostly the landless working class and worked for their chief or ruler because of debt bondage. In many ways, the abolishment of slavery was disadvantageous for local

224

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

ruling class’s economy, especially in coconuts, and rubber plantations. Since early of the 19th century, the establishment of the British Colonial rule was concentrated for the enterprise of plantations and mines for European market. The urban development under the British Colonial rule was not only to build the infrastructure for mining and plantation business, but also to provide residential areas for their colonial officers and workers. British Colonial officers mostly lived in an architecturally planned area with a bungalow type of houses. Their construction is adjusted to tropical climate and monsoon (Fig. 4). After the British officers left the town in 1957, the Malaysian Federated administration took over the mining and plantation businesses. The activities in some towns,- such as Kuala Kubu Bharu, Taiping, Kampar, Gopeng, Batu Gajah, and Ipoh, were gradually declining and most of people went out of the town for seeking new jobs. However, some mining towns have been growing as a big city such as Kuala Lumpur and Seremban. The presence of the British colonial rule in the Malay world brought about the regional development with modern infrastructure. Cities, towns, villages, and important places in the Malay Peninsula were connected within a transportation network of railways or roads system. The British Colonial introduced to the Malay world the important of roads and railways system for the economy of the region. For the centre of the British colonial administration, the geographical location of Kuala Lumpur was politically and economically not strategic without the support of roads and railway system. The British began to build and develop railway network in 1885 (Puffert, 2009, p. 235). Long distance tracks were constructed in 1901 that connected several towns in the Federated Malay States. Unsurprisingly, most of main railways station is the zero referential point of towns and cities; the centre is marked out with the railway station building. The architecture of railway station buildings is remarkable which is potential and unique as urban landmark. The Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh Railway Stations built in 1917 for example are the exemplary heritage of Indian Mughal architecture (Fig. 5) in the Malay world. The architect of both buildings is the English man Arthur Bennison Hubback. His other remarkable buildings in Kuala Lumpur

Fig. 4. British colonial house in Johor Bahru, photograph by author

city centre are Old City City Hall in 1896, Masjid Jameek in 1906, and High Court in 1912. The British colonial architecture in the period between 1900s and 1930s shows an attempt to establish stylistic and artistic bond between India and the Malay world. Hubback is a notable British colonial architect with his creative elaboration of brick wall architecture. His design is apparently adaptive to tropical climate, with strong sense of rhythmic interplay between void and solid that creates attractive arch shades. The other British architect is AC Norman, whose design for the Old Post Office building is remarkable in making a significant contribution to a landmark in the inner city of Kuala Lumpur. All remarkable public buildings with Mughal architecture characterize the inner city of Kuala Lumpur. At the centre of the city is the square where the British colonial gentry gathered for playing polo and spent their leisure in their Gentlemen Club House. There are several towns and cities in the Malay Peninsula demonstrating and maintaining the traces of the British colonial heritage. Kuala Kubu Bharu was probably the first architecturally planned community in the Malay world. Being inspired by Sir Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement in England, the town was planned and designed by Charles Compton Reade in the end of 1920s, who had ever worked for Government Town Planning office in South Australia, and left for working for the Federated Malay States (Hall, 2002, p. 128). Indeed, Compton Reade was member of Garden City Movement who came to Australia for a design competition of the Australia national capital of Canberra in 1911–12. His planning and design work for Kuala Kubu Bharu introduced to the Malay world the importance of compact community settlement for an industrial town (Fig. 6). His legacy includes the plan and design of residential block consisting of a pair of row houses with a back lane for utilities. The community of Kuala Kubu Bahru was to establish an administrative centre of tin mining business in Selangor region. The town was designed at the foot of Fraser’s hill (Matsom, 1995). Chinese migrants came to the area in the end of the 19th century working for tin mining. During the period between 1930s and 1942, mining activities have been gradually taken over by plantation business. The town of Kuala Kubu Bharu was famous for its colonial heritage that comprises shophouses, row houses and public buildings in a compact cluster. The economy of the town and its region was in decline after the end of the Pacific war. The communist party of Malaysia concentrated their activities against the British colonialism in this town; the British called the era between 1948 and 1952 as the Period of Emergency that brought about the decline of Kuala Kubu Bahru as an administrative town with its economic backbone relying on tin mining business. Communist upheaval in Kuala Kubu Bahru was not an isolated case. Ethnic tensions, class struggle, and social justice were ostensible since early times of the British colonialism (DrakakishSmith, 1987, pp. 82–4). The quality of life in this town did not make any significant development after British colonialism handed over their power to the Federated Malay States in 1957. The economy of the town has been slowly improving as the historic colonial asset belongs to a touristic industry of Malaysia.

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

225

Fig. 5. Ipoh Railways Station photograph by author.

Fig. 6. Map of Kuala Kubu Bahru drawn by author.

At the beginning of the 1960s Post Colonial bandar in the Malay world has been the business as usual as it was under the British Colonial rule. The municipalities, which were established by the British, had been already installed with the planning division for coordinating and supervising physical infrastructure, especially for flood control, sanitation, and clean drink water system. Kuala Lumpur was the first municipality in the Federated Malay States having special section for spatial development plan in 1921. However, the Planning Act for Town and Country was in effect for the first time in 1926. Accordingly, the development and construction of public utilities and infrastructure was subject to municipal approval and supervision. However, the planning section has not yet taken action for development policy and spatial planning in their respective jurisdiction. Physical and spatial planning came into the attention and subject matter of different level of policy makers, – from Federal, State, to municipal business, – after the enactment of Town and Country Planning Act in 1967. Today, physical development inside the urban areas is necessarily to follow and to fit with policies and plans in a hierarchical bureaucratic system from country, state, region, and vicinity. In principle, planning in post-colonial Malaysia is a Top-Down process and production system. However, strategic and future oriented plans in terms of

long-term comprehensive official plans are still far from the main routine business of municipalities. Seemingly, municipalities and state planning divisions have not yet had the urgency for enacting strong zoning or urban design regulations and controls. The ad hoc development controls are likely common practice in dealing with various cases of urban development. Instead of dealing with the existing urban heritage, revitalization, and redevelopment, physical planning in this country is politically preferable to deal with new developments in the relatively vacant land. New town developments took place in various Malay states in past decades. Since 1980s important developments include the establishment of Putra Jaya, Shah Alam, Cyber Jaya, Petaling Jaya in Selangor, and Iskandar Malaysia in Johor. What are the ideas and forces behind these new developments? Are these facts showing a consistent tradition of urbanism in Southeast Asia, which did not lead to an independent ‘‘bourgeois” cities but was closely related to state formation and systems of domination (Evers & Korff, 2000, p. 27)? Putra Jaya is the government centre of the Federated Malay States in Putra Jaya in the State of Selangor. The new development incorporates the vision of architecturally intelligent capital city of Malaysia. The move towards this vision does not show a historical consistency with the original concept of bandar; the institution of urban settlements in the Malay Peninsula has been always part of its integration into an economic network rather than the establishment of territorial states. To certain extent, the vision of Putra Jaya is likely in the line with the British colonial rule’s way they has chosen Kuala Lumpur as their colonial administrative centre. As an administrative centre, Putra Jaya needs a representative environment free from hectic commercials and traffic congestions. As garden city, Putra Jaya needs ample green space for variety of tropical flora and water body so that government could perform their job well in an architecturally outstanding environment with a monumental juxtaposition and colossal composition. The location of Putra Jaya seems have no specific economic and geographical advantage either for trading network or for public service. However, Putra Jaya is perfect for the power display or showcase of Malaysia’s vision on urban planning and design in the Age of Information Technology. To what extent are the new developments mentioned above supportive to the sense of place and nation building in Malaysia? Since its very conception Malaysia, the

226

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

country was faced with a dilemma of modernizing the concept of nation without compromising the delicate ethnic balance of multicultural society (Gomez, 2007, p. 46). The question is crucial in Malaysia because all issues on identity are inescapable from the fact that ethnically segregated reality demands a new paradigm for a new beginning that will put in question all privileges and advantages only for the certain ethnic group (Milne & Mauzy, 1999, p. 167; Daniels, 2005, p. 110). To this question, the Malaysian government under the leadership of Mahathir Muhammad to Najib has not yet been ready to lift the Malay benefits and advantage. Urban habitation and life style Dining out in outdoor and in public domains is the most favourable activity in leisure time for most populations in the Malay towns and cities; they do together with the whole family member in mild and clear evening. Various restaurants offer local foods and drinks with their own special menu. Interestingly, foods and drinks for the Malay populations have to be stately certified halal and free from pork and lard. With such certification, the Malay could go into Indian and Chinese restaurants or cafes. To certain extent, religious barriers and cultural differences do not make interracial interactions among them easier. Even though grouping of informal gathering in public domains is based on racial identity, they share something in common for peace and tolerance. The Chinese, Indian, and Malay populations share the values of mutual respect and tolerance on their traditional basis. The Chinese understand the values as in the context of Confucianism, while the Malays hold them as hormat and tenggang rasa according to adat, and the Indians value them as in terms of Dharma. The Malaysian foods are the best evidence for the practice of mutual respect and tolerance in daily life. Nevertheless, the reality of ethnic relations and multicultural society in Malacca is likely not without challenges and incidences. The Eurasian Portuguese in many parts of Malacca area have to face the crisis of status and identity after the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia. Even though their existence as a community in the Malay world has been since the Dutch colonial rule, the integration of their ethnic status and identity into the Malay political party and society is still the work in progress. Even today, the Christian community of kampung serani remains only the site that carries its name; the residents of the Eurasian village were not around in the area anymore. The relationship between ethnic identity and its cultural heritage in today Malaysia is crucial that is necessarily to be put in the context of power relation with the predominant Islamic populations. The politics of race in Malaysia has not yet come to end until today, but the people on the street interact and communicate peacefully with each other in Malay language regardless their colour and origin. The Malay populations mostly occupy public sectors, while Chinese and Indians mostly run businesses and other private sectors. Migrant workers fill the gap of occupations, especially for labour in manufactures, utilities, commercial

services, and domestic jobs. In urban development and construction, foreign workers fill most laborious positions; employment agencies arrange and manage rent flats and accommodations for such workers. As a whole, the image of the Malay towns and cities is multicultural and vibrant during the daily bright leisure evening. Beside its diverse ethnicity, Islamic gender relation comes into play in public domains. Women and men suppose not do handshake when they meet. Malay, Indian, and Chinese populations share their value for not hugging each other when they encounter each other in public places. Interpersonal interactions in public areas are strictly polite and quite formal. The common language for interracial communication is mostly Malay language. However, they know and speak English language to each other as well. Concerning their existence as a nation, the three major ethnic groups have been trying their best to live and grow together, given that their schools are racially segregated from early childhood on. One important platform for multiethnic interaction for nation building is at the higher education level such as internationally rank universities, state institutions, and public sectors. The other important public domain where all ethnic groups mingle together is the town market, pasar awam. Naturally and informally, people interact with each other with exchange of words and smiles. Unlike malls, not all family members visit market. Most visitors are from under middle and working class. Nevertheless, the real and potential place and process of nation building is probably the market; seemingly, common and daily economy speaks volume than ideological differences. Indeed, urbanity is not perfect without taking manners and courtesies of its urban citizens in public domains. The way people drive give us the sense of urbanity in this country is. Tailgating and noncompliance against traffic light are common phenomena on some urban areas. Respect to pedestrians and bikers still needs miles to go with their sustainable development scheme. Significant efforts and developments for pedestrian friendly environment have been made in several towns and cities such as Melaka’s Hang Tuah Mall and Kuala Lumpur’s Bukit Bintang strip and Central Market passage. However, the integration of mass-rapid-transit and pedestrian path network is still the work in progress. Surprisingly, such integration seems not apparent for the government’s new towns development such as in Putrajaya, Syah Alam, and Iskandar. Private car-oriented lifestyle dominates mostly public spaces and commercial areas. As anywhere on the globe, malls are the generators of traffic flow. Unlike in North America, malls in Malaysia are not only built in suburban areas, but also become an integrated part of urban centre, such as Petronas Twin Tower & KLCC in Kuala Lumpur, City Square in Johor Bahru, and Grand Market in Kota Bahru of Kelantan. Culturally, malls are also the stage of daily-life spectacle of Malaysian societies that represent and signify the colourful ethnicity with their unique symbols and attributes. To certain extent, the monstrous consumerism of capitalistic machinery seems to be concealed by the multicultural vibrancy of mall customers.

B. Wiryomartono / City, Culture and Society 4 (2013) 217–227

Concluding remarks The sense of place in the Malay world is a socio-culturally constructed habitation that builds, establishes, maintains, and sustains the relationship between people and built environment based on customs, traditions, and acculturations. The Malay world has been changing since pre-colonial times with architectural adjustments and transformation in terms of design, function, and technology. Despite changes and transformations, the basic idea of house, neighbourhood, and urban settlement remains the same within the traditional sense of social cohesiveness. Even though various ethnic groups try their best to live together in a location, sharing domains is the most favourable and peaceful solutions for their sense of place. Indeed, adjustment and tolerance for conform, perpaduan, and consensus, mufakat (Shumaker, 2010, p. 140) come forward in the planning and design solution of places instead of individually profiling presence.

References Abu Bakar, J. (2002). Design guide for public park in Malaysia. Skudai: Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Ammon, U. (2006). Sociolinguistic handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Andaya, B. W., & Andaya, L. Y. (1982). A history of Malaya. Houndmills, Hampshire: MacMillan Press. Asiapac Editorial (2003). Gateway to Malay culture. Singapore: Asiapac Books. Baba, S. (2009). Melayu Perkasa. Kuala Lumpur: Alaf. Bulbeck, D. (1996). Halocene biological evolution of the Malay Peninsula aborigines (Orang Asli). In E. Rousham, L. Freedman, & R. Pervan (Eds.), Perspective in human biology: humans in Australasian region. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Daniels, T. P. (2005). Building cultural nationalism in Malaysia, identity, representation and citizenship. London: Routledge. De Witt, D. (2007). History of the Dutch in Malaysia. Petaling Jaya: Nutmeg. Drakakish-Smith, D. W. (1987). The third world city. London: Routledge. Evers, H.-D., & Korff, R. (2000). Southeast Asian urbanism, the meaning and power of social space. Münster: LIT Verlag Münster. Frisk, S. (2009). Submitting to God, women and Islam in urban Malaysia. Copenhagen: NIAS Press. Ghazali, S. (2013). Sense of place and the politics of ‘‘insider-ness” in the village undergoing transition: the case of city Kampung in Penang Island. In T. Bunnell, D. Parthasarathy, & E. C. Thompson (Eds.), Cleavage, connection and conflict in rural, urban and contemporary Southeast Asia (pp. 114–179). Berlin: Springer. Gomez, A. G. (2007). Modernity and Malaysia, settling the Menraq Forest Nomads. London: Routledge.

227

Gong, G. W. (2001). Memory and history in East and Southeast Asia, issues of identity in international relations. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Grime, C. E. (1996). Indonesian, an official language of multiethnical nation. In S. A. Wurm, P. Mühlhäusler, & D. T. Tryon (Eds.), Atlas of languages of intercultural communication in Pacific, Asia, America. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Gullick, J. M. (1969). Malaysia and its neighbors. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hall, P. G. (2002). Cities of tomorrow, an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century. New York: Willey-Blackwell. Huang, R. (1982). 1587, a year of no significance: the Ming dynasty in decline. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jacq-Hergoualc’h, M. (2002). The Malay Peninsula, crossroads of the maritime silk road (100 BC–1300 AD) [V. Hobson, Trans.]. Leiden: Brill. Keat, G. O. (2009). Historical dictionary of Malaysia. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. Khan, J. (2006). Other Malays, nationalism and cosmopolitanism in the modern Malay world. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Lange, M. (2006). Lineage of despotism and development: British colonialism and state power. Chicago: University Chicago Press. Lim, J. Y. (2011). The Malay house, principles to building simple and beautiful homes for comfort and community. East Petersburg: Fox Chapel Publishing. Maguin, P.-Y. (2000). City–states and city–state cultures in pre 15th century Southeast Asia. In M. H. Hansen (Ed.), A comparative study of city–state cultures, an investigation (pp. 409–430). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Matsom, A. (1995). Kuala Kubu Bharu, bandar yang tenang. Kuala Lumpur: Hasrat Murni. Milne, R. S., & Mauzy, D. (1999). Malaysian politics under Mahathir. London: Routledge. Newitt, M. D. D. (1986). The first Portuguese colonial empire. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Osman, M. T. (1985). Malaysian world view. Singapore: Instiitut of Southeast Asian Studies. Puffert, D. J. (2009). Tracks across continents, paths through history: the economic dynamics of standardization in railway gauge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rappa, A. L., & Wee, L. (2006). Language, policy and modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Berlin: Springer. Reid, A. (1995). Continuity and change in Austronesian transition to Islam and Christianity. In P. Bellwood, J. Fox, & D. Tyron (Eds.), The Austronesians historical and comparative perspective (pp. 331–350). Canberra: ANU Press. Shumaker, C. E. (2010). The formative years of Malaysian politics. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris. Simanjuntak, T. (2006). Archaeology: Indonesian perspective, R.P. Soejono Festschrift. Jakarta: LIPI. Subramaniam, V. (2008). Asimilasi nilai-nilai murni kebudayaan Melayu dalam masyarakat Baba dan Nyonya. Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Atmajaya, Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya [11 pages paper]. Tim Pengembang Ilmu Pendidikan FIP UPI (2007). Ilmu dan aplikasi Pendidikan, handbook 1. Bandung: Imperial Bhakti Utama. Wan Teh, W. H. (2011). Hubungan Etnik di Malaysia, ethnic relations in Malaysia. Petaling Jaya: Heinemann. Weiss, M. (2012). The Malysian human right movement. In S. Hasan & M. Weiss (Eds.), Social movements in Malaysia from moral communities to NGOs. London: Routledge. Wheatley, P. (1983). Negara and Commandery, origin of Southeast Asian urban traditions. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography [Research Paper 207–8].