What do you think?
Rate this book
The peoples of South-East Asia and The Pacific
คนมาเลย์: การก่อเกิดสำนึกและอัตลักษณ์
ผมจึงรู้สึกไม่แปลกใจและยินดีที่ท่านทูตดำรงได้ตัดสินใจที่จะแปลหนังสือเล่มนี้ของศาสตราจารย์แอนโทนี มิลเนอร์ เพื่อเป็นการถ่ายทอดองค์ความรู้ที่มาจากการศึกษาวิจัยอย่างละเอียดถี่ถ้วนเป็นเวลาหลายปีของศาสตร์ตราจารย์มิลเนอร์ งานวิจัยนี้ประกอบด้วยเรื่องราวที่น่าสนใจอย่างมากเกี่ยวกับ "คนมาเลย์" และ "ความเป็นมาเลย์" อันจะช่วยให้เกิดความกระจ่างมากขึ้นเกี่ยวกับความสลับซับซ้อนของสถานการณ์ภาคใต้ของไทย ที่มีทั้งปัจจัยดั้งเดิมและปัจจัยใหม่ๆ ทั้งภายในและระหว่างประเทศที่เข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องและส่งผลทำให้การแก้ไขปัญหามีความท้าทายยิ่งขึ้น
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
356 pages, Paperback
First published November 10, 2008
16 people are currently reading
118 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 20, 2012
The author delves into elusive concept of Malay-ness. With limited written historic resources coupled with constant migration across the strait and adoption of Hinduism and Islam in succession, explaining it, let alone defining it, is mind-boggling endeavor indeed.
When the Western colonialism receded leaving power vacuum there, soul-searching of the Malay people have begun in earnest. The meaning of Malay, however, still remains fluid, if not arbitrary, because it have been at the center of nation building and modernization of the country in which ethnic struggle for political eminence have been of critical importance.
To be a diverse and vibrant country, Malay-ness needs to be reinterpreted constantly to encompass and straddle ancient and modern times, Malays and non-Malays, muslims and infidels. It would not be easy but definitely worthwhile.
When the Western colonialism receded leaving power vacuum there, soul-searching of the Malay people have begun in earnest. The meaning of Malay, however, still remains fluid, if not arbitrary, because it have been at the center of nation building and modernization of the country in which ethnic struggle for political eminence have been of critical importance.
To be a diverse and vibrant country, Malay-ness needs to be reinterpreted constantly to encompass and straddle ancient and modern times, Malays and non-Malays, muslims and infidels. It would not be easy but definitely worthwhile.
March 29, 2020
Antara buku terbaik yang pernah saya baca. Penulis jelas memahami konsep Melayu. Hujah dan huraian yang dikemukakan berjaya menjelaskan konsep 'Melayu'. Konsep Melayu yang difahami oleh orang Malaysia berbeza dengan orang Indonesia, sebab itulah berlaku banyak percanggahan pendapat terutamanya dalam media sosial.
Buku Anthony Milner ini berjaya menjawab kekeliruan tersebut. Oleh itu, saya sarankan buku ini wajib dimiliki dan dibaca oleh semua rakyat Malaysia dan Indonesia terutamanya sesiapa sahaja yang mengakui diri mereka itu Melayu.
Buku Anthony Milner ini berjaya menjawab kekeliruan tersebut. Oleh itu, saya sarankan buku ini wajib dimiliki dan dibaca oleh semua rakyat Malaysia dan Indonesia terutamanya sesiapa sahaja yang mengakui diri mereka itu Melayu.
February 7, 2023
In this book, Milner really dives into the meaning of Malayness and how it came to be. This is my third Milner and I am starting to comprehend his researcher lens. He is Australian who is deeply fascinated by Malaysian history. Not sure if he is in love with it, no, unlike Mubin Sheppard. Therefore, his language is objective and rational. The downside to this is that colonisation, whether you like it or not, is never truly an objective thing. It's oppressive in the utmost emotional sense, stripping away the subjugated of their dignity and sense of being. I suppose that is Milner's biggest weakness as a scholar - he can extrapolate a topic marvellously well but is not able to capture how it feels like to be a colonial or postcolonial subject.
.
The Malays as a book, though, is admirable. Milner is very systematic in teaching the various notions of Malayness that have existed in history. It is mostly associated with the Malacca sultanate in current memory. However, what many people don't realise is that the Malay rulers with their kerajaan ideology did not favour racial lens. For them, the people were their rakyat, their subjects. Race and religion did not actually matter for the rulers as long as they had their people's loyalty. Therefore, they utilised race and religion only to expand their power and influence, as what happened in the mass conversion of sultanates from Hinduism to Islam in Nusantara. However, the Sultans ensured that Islam was localised to suit their people, never applying it in a rigid manner. This contradicted the wish of the clerics and ulama who favoured a more puritanical approach. Therefore, the kerajaan and religious ideologies were more native to Nusantara. Bangsa or the Malay race was a colonial construct, having solidified itself as a result of the locals in Malaya needing to settle into an identity that could resist colonisation. Why race? Because the Sultans would prefer to maintain their authority over the people, with or without colonisation.
.
The Malay rulers had a rude awakening when the Japanese came and humiliated them. Malayan Union happened and for the first time ever, there was a Malay protest, Malay energy, the people demanding respect and dignity for the Malay population. A colonial construct it might have been, the Malay bangsa was here to stay and the British and the raja/rulers had to contend with them. If there is one thing I learnt reading Milner, it is that navigation and negotiation is the name of the game. One can never win being too idealistic or radical. If we want result, we have to play with the cards given to us. The same with the Malayans who wanted Independence. And the rulers who wanted their power preserved.
.
Therefore, power or the fear of being powerless is the essence of who we are as a people, it seems. Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia, the Malays will never disappear from the face of the earth. Milner argues that nama or reputation is the most important thing for a Malay. I agree BUT only for the elites. For the common people, reputation is nothing next to survival and feeding our family. Hence, I feel like there's something missing in his arguments. As if the sources we have been using to study Malayness are from an elitist point of view, from the right, centre or left.
.
However, I love Milner's conclusion that we need to move beyond race and ethnicity in our thinking. The concept of civilisation is the way forward. Because Malayness, in real life, is about habits, values, culture and NOT blood. Anyone can be absorbed to be Malays in Malaysia, at least. That was what happened. The Kelantanese, Bugis, Minangkabau and others all came under the umbrella term of Malayness. In Indonesia and other countries, Malays were separated from these ethnicities or suku. Therefore, us Malay Malaysians utilised Malayness to harness a sort of collective power to dominate other communities. For survival? For dignity? Or, like Milner said, for nama?
.
The Malays as a book, though, is admirable. Milner is very systematic in teaching the various notions of Malayness that have existed in history. It is mostly associated with the Malacca sultanate in current memory. However, what many people don't realise is that the Malay rulers with their kerajaan ideology did not favour racial lens. For them, the people were their rakyat, their subjects. Race and religion did not actually matter for the rulers as long as they had their people's loyalty. Therefore, they utilised race and religion only to expand their power and influence, as what happened in the mass conversion of sultanates from Hinduism to Islam in Nusantara. However, the Sultans ensured that Islam was localised to suit their people, never applying it in a rigid manner. This contradicted the wish of the clerics and ulama who favoured a more puritanical approach. Therefore, the kerajaan and religious ideologies were more native to Nusantara. Bangsa or the Malay race was a colonial construct, having solidified itself as a result of the locals in Malaya needing to settle into an identity that could resist colonisation. Why race? Because the Sultans would prefer to maintain their authority over the people, with or without colonisation.
.
The Malay rulers had a rude awakening when the Japanese came and humiliated them. Malayan Union happened and for the first time ever, there was a Malay protest, Malay energy, the people demanding respect and dignity for the Malay population. A colonial construct it might have been, the Malay bangsa was here to stay and the British and the raja/rulers had to contend with them. If there is one thing I learnt reading Milner, it is that navigation and negotiation is the name of the game. One can never win being too idealistic or radical. If we want result, we have to play with the cards given to us. The same with the Malayans who wanted Independence. And the rulers who wanted their power preserved.
.
Therefore, power or the fear of being powerless is the essence of who we are as a people, it seems. Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia, the Malays will never disappear from the face of the earth. Milner argues that nama or reputation is the most important thing for a Malay. I agree BUT only for the elites. For the common people, reputation is nothing next to survival and feeding our family. Hence, I feel like there's something missing in his arguments. As if the sources we have been using to study Malayness are from an elitist point of view, from the right, centre or left.
.
However, I love Milner's conclusion that we need to move beyond race and ethnicity in our thinking. The concept of civilisation is the way forward. Because Malayness, in real life, is about habits, values, culture and NOT blood. Anyone can be absorbed to be Malays in Malaysia, at least. That was what happened. The Kelantanese, Bugis, Minangkabau and others all came under the umbrella term of Malayness. In Indonesia and other countries, Malays were separated from these ethnicities or suku. Therefore, us Malay Malaysians utilised Malayness to harness a sort of collective power to dominate other communities. For survival? For dignity? Or, like Milner said, for nama?
April 14, 2025
The book’s main takeaway is that the author suggests we should perhaps understand the “Malays” not merely from an “ethnic” point of view, but from a civilizational vantage (p. 311). To support this main argument, the author contends that the definition of the Malays has always been fluid.
Among his many observations and beliefs are: (1) that the old “Malay literature” such as Hikayat Iskandar Zulkarnain was only retroactively renamed Misa “Melayu” (p. 116), as an act of self-rebranding rather than a reflection of a continuous, unified consciousness; (2) that various Malay subcultures insist on their differences, such as the Kelantanese “Malays” and the Johorean “Malays” (p. 13); and (3) that the term “Malays” rarely appeared in official documents or royal correspondence prior to the arrival of the Europeans (p. 114).
Based on these points, the author opines that the term “Malays” was introduced and utilized by colonial administrators to classify a subsection of the peoples of the Archipelago based on geographical and cultural heuristics (p. 115). He also notes that in pre-independence Malaya, the “Malay” label was politically expanded to include peoples who were not historically associated with the Malays, such as the Javanese and the indigenous peoples of Borneo. The book is filled with examples aimed at illustrating that the concept of the “Malays” is so fluid that it may be impossible to conceive of them as a concrete entity.
As readers will likely notice, the author applies quotation marks whenever referring to the term “Malays,” reflecting the view described above. This is, admittedly, difficult for me to accept—no one doubts the heterogeneity within the Chinese (Hakkas, Hokkiens, etc.), the Indians (Tamils, Telugus, etc.), or the Germans (Bavarians, Austrians, etc.), and yet these are not placed in quotation marks.
While it is certainly plausible for a definition to evolve over time, it does not follow that there is no essence underlying the definition. If that were the case, we would not be able to speak of “cats” either, given the variation among them. But just like with groups of people, we still recognize the difference between a cat and a horse. Things may become blurry when characteristics overlap, but this does not necessarily mean that distinctions are artificial.
In reality, as with cats or Germans, specification occurs over time, allowing distinctions to persist. Yes, definitions change, and their scope may expand or narrow, but change does not occur upon nothing. That would be a nominalist disaster (nominalist is a school of thought that negates the existence of universals, such as cats, Germans, Malays. They only affirm the existence of particulars). Change must occur upon something that persists. That’s how we know that firewood has become charcoal—because the idea of the firewood persists despite undergoing change.
Thus, I believe that distinctions and specifications among peoples occur through stable factors: biological, linguistic, religious, and historical. Geography results in real biological differentiation—such as the enhanced lungs and endurance of the Sherpa compared to lowlanders. Linguistics also yields real distinctions, as language expresses the worldview of a people shaped by their interactions with the environment. For example, the root word for “eye” in Austronesian languages is mata, which becomes unintelligible when one crosses into the Sino-Tibetan sphere, where the root word is mig. The absence of a specific demarcation between these two linguistic spheres does not mean they are not real and distinct. Languages do not operate according to an obsessive, atomistic conception. The boundary of a river is not defined by its exact width, but by the act of crossing.
Religious and historical experiences also yield real effects, as they shape the worldview of a people. Therefore, while the process of defining a people is dynamic, it is still grounded in real mechanisms applied to a group that has already attained a degree of internal specification. It is not a matter of arbitrarily applying a label to an unrelated collection of individuals. Even without documents mentioning the term “Malays,” there was already a living, breathing people who possessed a particular way of life and worldview.
Among his many observations and beliefs are: (1) that the old “Malay literature” such as Hikayat Iskandar Zulkarnain was only retroactively renamed Misa “Melayu” (p. 116), as an act of self-rebranding rather than a reflection of a continuous, unified consciousness; (2) that various Malay subcultures insist on their differences, such as the Kelantanese “Malays” and the Johorean “Malays” (p. 13); and (3) that the term “Malays” rarely appeared in official documents or royal correspondence prior to the arrival of the Europeans (p. 114).
Based on these points, the author opines that the term “Malays” was introduced and utilized by colonial administrators to classify a subsection of the peoples of the Archipelago based on geographical and cultural heuristics (p. 115). He also notes that in pre-independence Malaya, the “Malay” label was politically expanded to include peoples who were not historically associated with the Malays, such as the Javanese and the indigenous peoples of Borneo. The book is filled with examples aimed at illustrating that the concept of the “Malays” is so fluid that it may be impossible to conceive of them as a concrete entity.
As readers will likely notice, the author applies quotation marks whenever referring to the term “Malays,” reflecting the view described above. This is, admittedly, difficult for me to accept—no one doubts the heterogeneity within the Chinese (Hakkas, Hokkiens, etc.), the Indians (Tamils, Telugus, etc.), or the Germans (Bavarians, Austrians, etc.), and yet these are not placed in quotation marks.
While it is certainly plausible for a definition to evolve over time, it does not follow that there is no essence underlying the definition. If that were the case, we would not be able to speak of “cats” either, given the variation among them. But just like with groups of people, we still recognize the difference between a cat and a horse. Things may become blurry when characteristics overlap, but this does not necessarily mean that distinctions are artificial.
In reality, as with cats or Germans, specification occurs over time, allowing distinctions to persist. Yes, definitions change, and their scope may expand or narrow, but change does not occur upon nothing. That would be a nominalist disaster (nominalist is a school of thought that negates the existence of universals, such as cats, Germans, Malays. They only affirm the existence of particulars). Change must occur upon something that persists. That’s how we know that firewood has become charcoal—because the idea of the firewood persists despite undergoing change.
Thus, I believe that distinctions and specifications among peoples occur through stable factors: biological, linguistic, religious, and historical. Geography results in real biological differentiation—such as the enhanced lungs and endurance of the Sherpa compared to lowlanders. Linguistics also yields real distinctions, as language expresses the worldview of a people shaped by their interactions with the environment. For example, the root word for “eye” in Austronesian languages is mata, which becomes unintelligible when one crosses into the Sino-Tibetan sphere, where the root word is mig. The absence of a specific demarcation between these two linguistic spheres does not mean they are not real and distinct. Languages do not operate according to an obsessive, atomistic conception. The boundary of a river is not defined by its exact width, but by the act of crossing.
Religious and historical experiences also yield real effects, as they shape the worldview of a people. Therefore, while the process of defining a people is dynamic, it is still grounded in real mechanisms applied to a group that has already attained a degree of internal specification. It is not a matter of arbitrarily applying a label to an unrelated collection of individuals. Even without documents mentioning the term “Malays,” there was already a living, breathing people who possessed a particular way of life and worldview.
January 22, 2022
(3.5) i think one of the most important things in the world is understanding where you come from. being a person from Malaysia and living overseas my whole life I miss a lot of cultural context of everyday things. I love learning about different people's cultures because you eventually start to realize that a lot of "different" cultures are actually very similar. Learning more about other people's cultures is also learning more about your own and understanding where you come from. Reading 'The Malays' by Anthony Milner was my first academic dissertation regarding Malay identity and it made me appreciate how important history is!! I loved reading it. it was a lengthy read but it was definitely worth it and i will definitely read more Malay literature in the future. a must!
December 27, 2020
An exceedingly academic work. That being said, it is undeniably interesting, particularly for those familiar with the peoples of the Malay Archipelago. More than anything else a conceptual, almost psychological work - it helps nail down somewhat the concept of being Malay. Hang Tuah was right - we’re not going anywhere.
May 14, 2020
Lebih sedap baca buku ini selepas baca Kerajaan: Malay Political Culture on the Eve of Colonial Rule. Beliau menghuraikan perkembangan sejarah konsep Melayu bertitik tolak daripada tesis 'kerajaan' dan 'nama' beliau.
January 18, 2021
Buku ini lebih berat dan sukar difahami. Sesuai dengan tajuk, buku ini tentang persoalan bukan penerangan. Terjemahan juga agak mengecewakan.
August 18, 2021
Kesinambungan naskah Kerajaan, penulis sememangnya memahami apa yang beliau bincang & hurai. Isi, persoalan dan juga idea dalam buku ini boleh kita belajar apa itu erti Melayu.
on-hiatus
November 21, 2017Available on Overdrive from National Library of Singapore
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews