Setting the record straight on Kedah-Penang ‘letter’ – Sivachandralingam Sundara Raja
Writer stresses that the term to refer to the allegedly non-existent agreement was not coined by him
Sivachandralingam Sundara Raja says he and Mary Turnbull, an acclaimed historian of the Straits Settlements, were saying that the ‘preliminary letter’ served as a temporary framework for Francis Light’s occupancy of Penang. – Penang Port Commission pic, January 1, 2022
PROF Ahmad Murad Merican’s allegation published in The Vibes that I manipulated historical facts by suggesting the existence of a non-existent agreement between Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah and Sir Francis Light for the leasing of Penang to East India Company (EIC) in 1786 is not only erroneous but also irrelevant.
My mistake, he claimed, was using the term “preliminary letter” to refer to the allegedly non-existent agreement. Firstly, the term was not coined by me.
Mary Turnbull, an acclaimed historian of the Straits Settlements, had already used it in her book A History of Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei (London, Allen & Unwin, 1989). Myself, and Turnbull, merely meant that the letter served as a temporary framework for Light’s occupancy of Penang.
The letter in question was sent by the sultan on August 31, 1785, through Light, to the Governor General of India, requesting military assistance and a compensation of 30,000 Spanish dollars in exchange for Penang.
It can be found in the Straits Settlements Records, Volume 2, ff. 33-36. It is quoted in R. R. Bonney’s Kedah, 1771-1821, The Search for Security and Independence, Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1971, p. 60, among other secondary sources. Thus, its existence is unarguable.
Prof Merican, I assume, is well aware of this fact, but may have been irritated by the fact that Light’s possession of Penang on August 11, 1786 was illegal. To be honest, he may be correct in this case, as no formal agreement relinquishing or leasing Penang to the Company was ever signed.
According to Bonney’s article Francis Light, the Nyonya, and Penang, which was published in the Journal of the Historical Society in 1964-1965, the occupation was only temporary until formal authorisation arrived from London.
So, why do historians believe there was a treaty that resulted in the occupation of Penang? This might be based on their interpretation of a treaty titled Agreement with the King of Quedah for the Cession of Prince of Wales Island, in 1786 in William George Maxwell and William Sumner Gibson’s 1924 book, Treaties and Engagement Affecting the Malay States and Borneo.
Prof Merican, nevertheless, should have read the aforementioned article by Bonney to enlighten himself more about this period in Penang’s history before sweepingly claiming that the letter I referenced in my earlier essay did not exist and that I was deliberately falsifying history.
In my defence, I was well aware that the letter was unlawful. I would nevertheless want to stress that, while the agreement’s legality may be challenged, its existence is just not. It remains a historical truth that Light obtained possession of Penang by this illegal letter. In no way did I imply that it was otherwise legal.
The letter/agreement might have even been drafted by Light himself, who used broad language to convince the British authority in India to consent to the lease of Penang. In two further letters to India, he opted to stress that the Sultan’s greatest dread was the threat of the Dutch.
Light presumably did so knowing that if the Burma-Siamese were the cause, the British in India would not consent to the lease. However, if the Dutch were mentioned, they would be compelled to consent so that they would not expand their power farther into the peninsula (the Dutch had already been occupying Malacca since 1641).
Although the Sultan would have been anxious about Kedah becoming embroiled in the Siamese-Burmese conflict, as Bonney interprets, Light may have recommended the Sultan not to reveal this to the Company. He also omitted to inform the Company that the Sultan had requested military aid from the Governor General of India.
Prof Merican then misinterpreted this as a type of colonial deception. I would rather view it as a type of colonial politics since claiming it was a form of deceit by Light not only lacks proof but also represents a modern-day value judgement.
While I attempted to explain my ideas in my paper as objectively as possible for the general public to grasp, Prof Merican appears to wish to propagate a history of colonial deception. He could never be more wrong.
These would be the reasons I believe his accusations against me are erroneous. Now, I will explain why it is irrelevant. My article focused on how country traders penetrated the Malay Peninsula and the sultans of the Malay states were convinced to form an alliance. It is not about how “cunning” Light must not have deceived Sultan Abdullah.
Drawing on evidence from my own monograph Perdagangan dan Pelabuhan Bebas, published by Penerbit Fajar Bakti in 1997 and then by UM Press under the title Sejarah Perdagangan Bebas in 2005, I believe country traders, including Light, had gained extensive knowledge of the region through existing trading networks by the late 18th and 19th centuries.
I also suggested that the Malay rulers were open to the commercial prospects they offered. Without the sultans of the Malay states, such as Selangor’s Sultan Ibrahim (1778-1826) and Terengganu’s Sultan Mansur I (1764-93), the idea of laissez-faire would not have made an influence on Malaysia’s economic history.
By highlighting that they asked British country traders to act as their consultants to fend off local and foreign intrusions, I have invited the public and historians to consider them first and foremost as politically astute, with colonial politics coming into play only afterwards.
While I attempted to portray the Malay rulers as admirable individuals in the light of their sensible attitude to the country traders, Prof Merican may have viewed them pitiful for being easily duped (they were not for the record).
What has happened is that Prof Merican and I come from different philosophical traditions, thus our interpretations of facts contradict each other. Yes, history, in whatever form it is invoked, is essentially an interpretation of some sort.
No one has said it more eloquently than A. F. Pollard in Factors in Modern History: “facts and figures are dry bones, it requires imagination to clothe them with meaning, no accumulation of materials, or ransacking of archives will make a man historian without the capacity to interpret and construct.”
After all is said and done, we historians usually find ourselves in a polemic of conflicting interpretations. And it is exactly because of this that history is such an engrossing topic. Prof Merican has given me the opportunity to start a conversation with the past in order to illuminate a subject that dates back many centuries.
“History is a continuous dialogue between historian and present, and between present and the past,” E. H. Carr writes in his What is History. The debate will continue when fresh interpretations of evidence are presented to refute the previous one. – The Vibes, January 1, 2022
PROF Ahmad Murad Merican’s allegation published in The Vibes that I manipulated historical facts by suggesting the existence of a non-existent agreement between Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah and Sir Francis Light for the leasing of Penang to East India Company (EIC) in 1786 is not only erroneous but also irrelevant.
My mistake, he claimed, was using the term “preliminary letter” to refer to the allegedly non-existent agreement. Firstly, the term was not coined by me.
Mary Turnbull, an acclaimed historian of the Straits Settlements, had already used it in her book A History of Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei (London, Allen & Unwin, 1989). Myself, and Turnbull, merely meant that the letter served as a temporary framework for Light’s occupancy of Penang.
The letter in question was sent by the sultan on August 31, 1785, through Light, to the Governor General of India, requesting military assistance and a compensation of 30,000 Spanish dollars in exchange for Penang.
It can be found in the Straits Settlements Records, Volume 2, ff. 33-36. It is quoted in R. R. Bonney’s Kedah, 1771-1821, The Search for Security and Independence, Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1971, p. 60, among other secondary sources. Thus, its existence is unarguable.
Prof Merican, I assume, is well aware of this fact, but may have been irritated by the fact that Light’s possession of Penang on August 11, 1786 was illegal. To be honest, he may be correct in this case, as no formal agreement relinquishing or leasing Penang to the Company was ever signed.
According to Bonney’s article Francis Light, the Nyonya, and Penang, which was published in the Journal of the Historical Society in 1964-1965, the occupation was only temporary until formal authorisation arrived from London.
So, why do historians believe there was a treaty that resulted in the occupation of Penang? This might be based on their interpretation of a treaty titled Agreement with the King of Quedah for the Cession of Prince of Wales Island, in 1786 in William George Maxwell and William Sumner Gibson’s 1924 book, Treaties and Engagement Affecting the Malay States and Borneo.
Prof Merican, nevertheless, should have read the aforementioned article by Bonney to enlighten himself more about this period in Penang’s history before sweepingly claiming that the letter I referenced in my earlier essay did not exist and that I was deliberately falsifying history.
In my defence, I was well aware that the letter was unlawful. I would nevertheless want to stress that, while the agreement’s legality may be challenged, its existence is just not. It remains a historical truth that Light obtained possession of Penang by this illegal letter. In no way did I imply that it was otherwise legal.
The letter/agreement might have even been drafted by Light himself, who used broad language to convince the British authority in India to consent to the lease of Penang. In two further letters to India, he opted to stress that the Sultan’s greatest dread was the threat of the Dutch.
Light presumably did so knowing that if the Burma-Siamese were the cause, the British in India would not consent to the lease. However, if the Dutch were mentioned, they would be compelled to consent so that they would not expand their power farther into the peninsula (the Dutch had already been occupying Malacca since 1641).
Although the Sultan would have been anxious about Kedah becoming embroiled in the Siamese-Burmese conflict, as Bonney interprets, Light may have recommended the Sultan not to reveal this to the Company. He also omitted to inform the Company that the Sultan had requested military aid from the Governor General of India.
Prof Merican then misinterpreted this as a type of colonial deception. I would rather view it as a type of colonial politics since claiming it was a form of deceit by Light not only lacks proof but also represents a modern-day value judgement.
While I attempted to explain my ideas in my paper as objectively as possible for the general public to grasp, Prof Merican appears to wish to propagate a history of colonial deception. He could never be more wrong.
These would be the reasons I believe his accusations against me are erroneous. Now, I will explain why it is irrelevant. My article focused on how country traders penetrated the Malay Peninsula and the sultans of the Malay states were convinced to form an alliance. It is not about how “cunning” Light must not have deceived Sultan Abdullah.
Drawing on evidence from my own monograph Perdagangan dan Pelabuhan Bebas, published by Penerbit Fajar Bakti in 1997 and then by UM Press under the title Sejarah Perdagangan Bebas in 2005, I believe country traders, including Light, had gained extensive knowledge of the region through existing trading networks by the late 18th and 19th centuries.
I also suggested that the Malay rulers were open to the commercial prospects they offered. Without the sultans of the Malay states, such as Selangor’s Sultan Ibrahim (1778-1826) and Terengganu’s Sultan Mansur I (1764-93), the idea of laissez-faire would not have made an influence on Malaysia’s economic history.
By highlighting that they asked British country traders to act as their consultants to fend off local and foreign intrusions, I have invited the public and historians to consider them first and foremost as politically astute, with colonial politics coming into play only afterwards.
While I attempted to portray the Malay rulers as admirable individuals in the light of their sensible attitude to the country traders, Prof Merican may have viewed them pitiful for being easily duped (they were not for the record).
What has happened is that Prof Merican and I come from different philosophical traditions, thus our interpretations of facts contradict each other. Yes, history, in whatever form it is invoked, is essentially an interpretation of some sort.
No one has said it more eloquently than A. F. Pollard in Factors in Modern History: “facts and figures are dry bones, it requires imagination to clothe them with meaning, no accumulation of materials, or ransacking of archives will make a man historian without the capacity to interpret and construct.”
After all is said and done, we historians usually find ourselves in a polemic of conflicting interpretations. And it is exactly because of this that history is such an engrossing topic. Prof Merican has given me the opportunity to start a conversation with the past in order to illuminate a subject that dates back many centuries.
“History is a continuous dialogue between historian and present, and between present and the past,” E. H. Carr writes in his What is History. The debate will continue when fresh interpretations of evidence are presented to refute the previous one. – The Vibes, January 1, 2022
Sivachandralingam Sundara Raja is an associate professor at Universiti Malaya’s history department
Penang is rightfully part of Kedah...
ReplyDeleteFull stop.
The alienation of Penang by Francis Light was illegal, under false pretences.