Social Roots of the Malay Left

by Rustam A. Sani

The Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) was the first Malay political party established in 1938 and led by Ibrahim Yaacob. KMM is often regarded as the precursor of the strand in modern Malay politics referred to as

Genres: History, Politics

82 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Kiridaren Jayakumar · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent deep invoking book on history of left, it would allow us to understand the complexity of left in Nusantara and Malaysia as a whole.

[Fadillah · Rating 4 out of 5]

“..The ideological divide between the KMM and the other state-based political organisations was not the crucial factor that led to the two distinct strands in modern Malay political development. In fact, in the absence of precise documentary evidence of the socialist ideology of the KMM, viewed from an ideological point of view, there was more than a shade of similarity between them--both were nationalist movements fully committed to the defence of Malay rights within the colonially created plural society. But, paradoxically, it was on the question of what was to constitute the Malay 'nation' that the two nationalist movements differed very sharply. Because of the social background of the neo-traditional elite and their proximity to the traditional ruling establishments maintained by colonial rule, their movements were more territorially based, i.e. based on the negeri which was the traditional limits for the effective exercise of power by the traditional rulers. Whereas, to the new non-traditional elite group, the concept 'Malay' was more cultural in connotation. Therefore in their version of nationalism, the Malay nation that they aspired to would have to embody the whole Malay 'race. It is in the light of this cultural' conception of the Malay nation that the strong sense of pan-Indonesianism of the KMM leadership has to be explained”.
- Social Roots of The Malay Left by Rustam A. Sani
.
.
I am glad that i knew this was written by Ahmad Boestamam’s son after i finished it. High expectation might have ruined my experience reading this book as i have
done this many times with other books. Before i highlighted few things that i have learned from the book, it is important to note that this book only have 70 pages. That itself indicated that the writing will not be in detailed manner. The first analysis that the author intend to discuss is on how the term ‘Left’ is differed from what has been perceived by the West particularly on the socialism itself. The Second analysis is the formation of KMM and how it evolved to Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) and the Partai Rakyat Malaya (PRM), the Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia (PSRM), the Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM), and even the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). Note that the author The third Analysis is on the emergence of Non - traditional elite that challenges the monopoly of political leadership by the ruling class at that point of time. The last analysis would be on understanding of the Pan-indonesian Ideology in the KMM and the adoption of a ‘Melayu Raya’ Idea. Overall, as an introductory course to the Malay Left in the context of Malaysian History, i would say this is adequate. However, if you wanted a comprehensive material and you already familiar with all the 4 analyses that i have outlined above, then this is not the book you should read.
.
.
Here’s are few points that i would like to share in the review that worth highlighting from the book:
1. When expressly Malay political organisations were started in the early 1930s, as we mentioned in the preceding chapter, the leaders were more than apologetic towards the state rulers. If these movements were to be considered nationalist movements, then the nationalism was more a reaction to the immigrant populations in their homeland, than a reaction to an alien colonial rule. It was only when the controversy over centralisation and later over decentralisation was raging that the Malay rulers and some Malay representatives in the state councils (mostly recruited from members of the traditional aristocratic families) took part. All the deliberation seems to have been considered the sole responsibility of the rulers, the ordinary people having no right to participate; the outcome would be accepted unquestioningly as the command of the ruler.
2. The main theme of the writings seems to be the importance of unity among Malays in order to consolidate their political action in the face of the challenges posed by the immigrant races to their birthright as the sons of the soil. If Ibrahim Yaacob had internalised a leftwing ideological stance since the 1920s this certainly did not show in his writings of the 1930s. What seems to appear from his writings (and also that of Ishak H. Muhammad) is that their nationalism was not of a very different nature from the 'Malay preservation' type of nationalism of the other state-based political organisations. Especially in the early 1930s, they even seem to be pleading for greater exercise of political authority by the traditional Malay rulers and were equally contemptuous of the immigrant races for their disrespect of the traditional rulers and the birthright of the Malays. There is no evidence that their emphasis had changed and they themselves had become more articulate in expressing a socialistic ideological stance by the time the KMM was formed in 1938.
3. Although the Sumpah Pemuda (Youth Pledge) of 28 October, 1928 in Jakarta declared that the source of Bahasa Indonesia is Malay, the language developed along slightly different lines from the Malay language that was later to develop into Bahasa Malaysia. This phenomenon which led to distinct developments has therefore to be distinguished from the 'pan-Indonesian' or Melayu Raya' sentiment. In this phenomenon not mere influencing involved; but it involved a sense of the cultural unity of the Malay race. Expressed in nationalistic terms, it becomes therefore the conviction that this cultural entity constitutes a potential political entity as well. In our description above of the flow of influences across the strait, the existence of this conviction is most obvious in the case of the Seruan Azhar group and also the KMM group. But Angus McIntyre has made a distinction between this aspect of the nationalist convictions of the Seruan Azhar group and that of the KMM group; while the 'pan-Malaysian' notion of the Cairo students ascribed equal status to the inhabitants of both colonial territories, the pan-Indonesian notion of the KMM group relegated the Malays to the position of the inhabitants of the periphery of the planned state.
4. Given the traditional political culture of the Malays which was based on the total submission of the subject class to the ruling class in political matters, the tendency was naturally to look for political leadership from the aristocratic stratum. This was provided by a newly emerging Western-educated administrative elite which was a function of a conscious effort by the British to create administrative personnel from among members of the traditional aristocracy. The social problems emerging in the 1930s, however, had also awakened the interest of the non-traditional "intelligentsia! With their increasing dissatisfaction with the political leadership and representation provided by the aristocratic elite--both outside and inside government institutions such as the state councils--the new emerging intelligentsia themselves began to take steps to lead the mobilisation of the Malay masses in a political organisation. This was indeed a novel phenomenon in the Malay society and it is in the light of this phenomenon that the formation of the KMM has to be seen.
5. Both the KMM and the PKMM took a very anti-colonial stance--an aspect of both organisations that led to the arrest of the members of the former just before the Japanese invasion and those of the latter during the post-war Emergency. In their efforts to achieve their anti-colonial aims, both the organisations seemed to be willing to forge a certain degree of collaboration' or 'cooperation' with other political forces within the country--for example with the Japanese and the MCP in the case of the KMM (also the PETA) and the non-Malay organisations of the All-Malaya Council of Joint Action (AMCIA) in the case of the PKMM (or rather the PUTERA organisations). Again, this is in marked contrast to the other Malay political organisations of the major strand which was more consistent in their Malay preservation' stance, (For example, UMNO was able to forge a certain degree of understanding and cooperation with MCA only in the fifties, even then after much hesitation and the resignation of its founder-president, Dato' On Jaafar).

[Johan Radzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another consequence of the social origins of the leaders of KMM was that - unlike other state-based political organisations of the time - their point of allegiance was not the traditional rulers within their traditional political boundaries (negeri). Instead they felt pride in belonging to a larger community of Malays and appealed, for example, to a basic loyalty to the Malay language and culture. This was where their form of 'Malay nationalism' differed fron that of the other strand, and this will be discussed further in the next chapter.

Mukasurat 50, Social Roots of Malay Left, oleh Rustam A. San

Kajian ini lebih jelas dalam memperkenalkan kita kepada susur galur Melayu-Kiri dalam politik tanahair; yang boleh dibandingkan dengan susur galur Melayu-tradisi yang lebih terikat kepada semangat kenegerian. Gagasan-gagasan awal Melayu-Kiri dikaji dan diteliti pra 1930a, dihubungkaitkan sekali dengan perkembangan-perkembangan kemerdekaan Indonesia. Satu poin penting yang disampaikan buku ini adalah 'sosialisme' yang dianuti oleh pergerakan-pergerakan awal ini bukanlah sosialisme yang disalin bulat-bulat daripada Barat, tetapi lebih berakar kepada tradisi kemelayuan dan kenusantaraan rantau ini. Lantas daripada itu, terbit gagasan yang akbar seperti Melayu Raya. Seperti yang dicatatkan awal bab, politik di Malaysia tidak bergerak dalam ruang idea, tetapi perkauman.

[Nicholas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The fact that this originated as a Masters thesis would leave more discerning readers much to desire, but that does not make the central thesis of the book any less compelling. Which is that, the Malay left, a genealogy traced backwards by the author from PKR to PRM to PSRM and then ultimately KMM, has its roots in changing political circumstances and social structures in the pre- and post- War decades rather than in direct ideological infusion from socialist/Marxist camps. It is a convincing theory if one read it with Malaysia’s intractable racial politics in mind, for Sani’s history of the Malay left puts the ‘Malay’ before the left.

What is needed as complements and sequels to this thesis is a dissection of the anti-colonial ideology that prompted the Malay left to work with other leftist groups, and how a race-based (though not necessarily centric) movement slowly adopted a social justice bent over time.

[Nur Izzan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent piece of writing. The thesis statement is lucid and precise explanation. This should be one of the best example of what dissertation is. Realistic in objective and clearly-explained the re-interpretation of the origin of Malay left, particularly KMM. The author may not consulted a lots of primary sources, yet he provides a new insight.

[Nur Aishah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gives you another perspectives on the common narrative.

[Athena Don · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some points and chapters were too repetitive. Would’ve been a much shorter book otherwise, or could’ve went deeper into the Social Roots of the Malay Left. Was enlightened by the introduction of the KMM however, but felt like it barely touched the surface of what the book could’ve been!

[Adi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dapat masa forum.
baca senafas di keesokan harinya.
analisis tentang KMM sampai PKMM sampai melayu raya.