The Transformation of Malay Political Culture in the Early Modern Era

Abstract

This article deals with the three major sultanates of Melaka (ca. 1400-1511), Johor (ca. 1528-1718) and Johor-Riau (1722-1824), in order to discuss Malay political culture and its development in the early modern era. Up till now many scholars have studied most of the pre-colonial Malay sultanates. Their research points out daulat (divinity of the Malay ruler), derhaka (treason against the ruler) and nama (titles of people, fame of the ruler) as important concepts for understanding ruler-subject relations. For example, Zainal Abidin bin Abdul Wahid stresses that since people of the Malay sultanates have believed in daulat and its effect on those who committed derhaka, they have always been loyal to their rulers from the Melaka period. While J. M. Gullick suggests that those concepts were not influential in 19th century Malay society, A. C. Milner states that nama has been the most important concept among them since Islamization. These different views make it necessary to reconsider the transformation of Malay political culture during early modern times.Although other studies pay little attention to the perjanjian (contract) between Sri Tri Buana and Demang Lebar Daun in the Sejarah Melayu (a Malay chronicle written in early 17th century Johor), its descriptions show that this perjanjian, which includes both the values of daulat and Islam, seemed to be the most important political principle in Melaka and Johor. In fact, ruler-subject relations in Johor were influenced by the two different values of daulat and the above-mentioned perjanjian. This can be seen in such incidents as the coup d'etat of the Paduka Raja (1688), the regicide of Sultan Mahmud (1699) and the Minangkabau conquest of Johor (1.718). While the non-Muslim orang laut (boat people) were always loyal to their tyrannical ruler in these incidents, the Muslim orang kaya (noblemen) committed regicide in 1699. Apparently, the former believed in daulat, while the latter respected the perjanjian.During the 17th and 18th centuries, Malay society experienced the following four changes: the penetration of Islam, the migration of Bugis, who possessed the perjanjian, tradition in ruler-subject relations, the disappearance of the direct descendants of the Melaka rulers after the regicide of 1699, and the spreading conflicts among the Malay sultanates. These incidents undermined the value of daulat among the Malay ruling class. Evidence of this can be seen in the 18th and 19th versions of Sejarah Melayu, that added more criticism of the rulers. In the case of Johor-Riau, an article concerning the disposition of the sultan was enacted. Those incidents also forced the ruling class to pay much more attention to both concepts of perjanjian and nama during the 18th century. The perjanjian sumpah setia (the oath of loyalty) between the Malay sultan and the Bugis raja muda (vice-king) was the most important political principle in Johor-Riau. Moreover, the perjanjian is often mentioned in the hikayats (chronicles) of the such Malay sultanates as Johor-Riau, Siak, Pahang and Perak. On the other hand, the growing importance of the ruler's charm among his people, like muka manis (sweet) and lemah lembuh (soft) and the mention of nama in the hikayats, shows that name grew to be important in Malay political life.Nama is often mentioned in the hikayats edited from the 18th century on. While titles were usually expressed by the word gelaran in the pre-18th century hikayats, the word nama was used to refer to titles in the Hikayat Hang Tuah, which was edited in the early 18th century. Furthermore, this is the oldest hikayat that often stresses that this world is not eternal but only the ruler's nama that remains after his death. It is