Talk:History of Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is supported by WikiProject Malaysia.

This project provides a central approach to Malaysia-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 WikiProject Southeast Asia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Southeast Asia-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] Comments on current version

well it didn't give me much information on malaysia, well not enough that i was looking for.

Article is too long. Will truncate it by removing minor details.__earth 17:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

If you do that I will revert your deletions. I don't think the article is too long, but if it is the solution is to divide it into two, not to delete material. Adam 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you've gotten yourself confused. I was referring to the previous article, the one you had it deleted/revamped/rewritten/whatever. Take note the date of the signature. __earth 04:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


The claim that the Emergency involved six years of fighting is incorrect. The Malayan Emergency lasted from 1948-60 and fighting, although limited in scope, took place right up until the end. Also, the claim that Templar invented counterinsurgency methods is also incorrect as those methods had been put in place before his arrival and he merely continued with them (although it must be admitted that he did so with a renewed vigour). There is pplenty of historiographical information about this issue available for consultation when this section is amended.colchar 13:35, 11 May 2006

It really is quite frustrating, since you remove information without discussing it first, information that is well justified and proven. (Ie. in the Melaka issue, it is a highlight of the dark side of colonialism that unethically treats people as second class simply because they lack military superiority) Could you discuss it next time please? -- Natalinasmpf 21:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article to editorialise about colonialism. Adam 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, if you want proof that Singapore was in fact expelled, I will be posting some sources in the PAP-UMNO relations article soon.

I have left the word "expelled" for now, but I will need to see evidence of an act of parliament or some other legal instrument actually expelling Singapore from the federation. If as you say Malaysia gave Singapore an ultimatum to withdraw, and Singapore then withdrew, that is not expulsion, it is secession, even if under duress. If that is what happened the article should say that. I await your documentary sources. Adam 00:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the PAP-UMNO relations article - the Tunku expelled Singapore from Malaysia, then agreed on post-separation relations. The actual agreement of Separation doesn't mean they agreed on why they should separate, but what they should do after separation (with respect to trade and such.) It may not be the purpose of an encyclopedia to editorialise, but certainly to analyse the facts.

The Portugese and other colonialists, did in fact, did use military superiority as an excuse of justified conquest to treat the natives as second-class, and this was a primary reason to drive independence of both Malaysia and Singapore. -- Natalinasmpf 00:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expulsion: At PAP-UMNO relations you write: "On August 7, 1965, Tunku Abdul Rahman announced to the Malaysian Parliament in Kuala Lumpur that he had ordered Singapore to leave the Federation, choosing to "sever all ties with a State Government that showed no measure of loyalty to its Central Government" as opposed to the undesirable method of repressing the PAP for its actions. Singapore's expulsion and independence became official on August 9, 1965."

Abdul Rahman wasn't an absolute monarch - he couldn't just "order" the expulsion of a member state from a constitutional federation. There must have been a legislative instrument of some kind. It must have taken the form either of Malaysia expelling Singapore against its will, or of Singapore withdrawing voluntarily (even if under duress). So you need to find that document.

Well, Asian "democracies" (we're really more like oligarchies) tend to have a lot of power vested in the executive branch, and the Tunku might have the authority to invoke the reason of constitutional violation (of Singapore not being "loyal") to lead to such an expulsion. But, I found this, however: http://app1.ipd.gov.sg/data/bookclub/V3N2A1.PDF (sorry that its in pdf). To sum it up - expulsion. The actual procedure is as follows (to crudely outline it): 1. The Tunku decided that separation is a must. 2. He then instructs his party members to lay out a plan for the separation of Singapore. 3. The PAP receives a letter to leave in 14 days. (Or else, basically.) 4. Singapore signs the agreement on conditions after post-separation. (De facto expulsion) 5. On August 9, the Alliance Party votes in favour to separate. De jure, it was a mere withdrawal. De facto, it is generally an expulsion. Had Singapore not agreed, Malaysia would have legally expelled it anyway, only without the cordiality of an agreement. Well, this is generally the way we were taught in our textbooks. -- Natalinasmpf 01:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for that excellent document. Although it uses the word expulsion, it makes it clear that Lee agreed to the separation of Malaysia and Singapore, even if reluctantly. I think the correct expression in the article should be that Singapore was forced to withdraw rather than that it was expelled. I will edit the text accordingly, and also expand on why the separation occurred, because: (a) the MCA feared that the PAP would steal the Chinese vote in Malaya, and (b) UMNO feared that the PAP's socialist policies would steal Malay votes in Malaya, as they had done in Singapore. Adam 02:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colonialism: This is not an article about colonialism. All that needs to be said in an article of this length is that the Portuguese captured Melaka. If you want to write a detailed account, do it at the Melaka article. Adam 00:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabah

The article claims Marcos recognised Malaysia and dropped the claimed to Sabah. AFAIK, the Sabah claim was put aside and is still not something the Phillipines actively pursues much but has not been dropped as supported by the Sabah article and the Savah dispute article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs)

It was dropped as a matter of practical politics, otherwise Malaysia and the Philippines could not have established diplomatic relations. It may still be technically in existence (what does that mean, anyway? Does the Filipono Constituition say that Sabah is part of the Philippines?), but nothing has been heard of if for 40 years. Adam 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia before foreign powers came

The article is pretty good, lots of info(which is a good thing, IMO). But, there is a glaring lack of information about the history and origins of the aboriginal people(non-Malay) and the actual Austronesian speaking Malays themselves.--Chicbicyclist 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is prehistory, not history. Feel free to write Prehistory of Malaysia or perhaps more usefully Prehistory of the Malay-Indonesian region. Adam 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right but how about the inclusion of the origins of these people in the demographics and the country article itself? There is a vague reference in the demographic article but none in the actual country article (although other prehistoric stuff is in that history section).--Chicbicyclist 07:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Prehistory belongs in a prehistory article, it is not really demographics. It also doesn't make much sense to define prehistory by country. "Malaysia" is a modern invention as this article makes clear. Before the 18th century the Malay-Indonesian world was a cultural whole. The topics I have suggested above are more useful, or you could do Origins of the Malay-speaking peoples if that's what interests you. Adam 08:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, there's already an article on Prehistoric Malaysia. __earth (Talk) 08:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Kedah kingdom

Hey guys, I just wonder why the old Kedah Kingdom is not mentioned in this article and the template as well. I think, compare to Gangga Negara and Langkasuka, Old Kedah is much more important since it used to be a trade center and one of the earliest maritime kingdom in Malay World.141.213.66.173 02:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is called "Lembah Bujang" originally excavated by Alistair Lamb. His notes on the original Archaeolical sites are extremely interesting. Lembah Bujang is pre-Angkor and pre-Borobuddor. It is spread over 240sq Kilometers making it almost what was thought to be the original size of Angkor. Lembah Bujang proves beyond doubt that most Malays were hindu at that point in time. The titles Raja and Sultan were also established then, under strong Hindu influence.

[edit] Is it correct?

  • " The first phase saw the domination of Hindu culture imported from India, which reached its peak in the great Srivijaya civilisation based in Sumatra, which ruled most of the Malay world from the 7th to the 14th centuries. "

<< Isn't the Indian people rule here since 1 bc?

We don't know if they actually ruled here. But we do know that the original name for Malay came from the fact that the Tamils called the locals "Malai" which simply means "hill people"


  • " European domination also led to the fourth phase of foreign influence: the mass immigration of Chinese and Indian workers to meet the needs of the colonial economy created by the British in the Malay Peninsula and North Borneo. The Chinese and Indians posed a profound threat to the Malays, dominating economic life and the professions, and at one time threatening to make the Malays a minority in their own country. "

<< And what about the aborigine peoples Orang Asli/Negrito/Senoi? — The Negritos simply transalate from Spanish to mean "mini Negros". They are in fact part of the original Australo-Melanesians who migrated out of Africa 60,000yrs ago from our DNA Adam. The present day "Malays" are but Austronesians (of Chinese origin; or more accurately, Mongoloid descent)


The preceding unsigned comment was added by L joo (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC). L joo 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malay Archipelago

Dear Merbabu, why "offshoot of the history of the wider Malay-Indonesian world that" is better that "offshoot of the history of the Malay Archipelago". You stated that the term Malay Archipelago is a colonial anachronism but it is not. The term Malay Archipelago is a legitimate and well-established term to describe a geographical area. __earth (Talk) 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Both are problematic and Malaysia-centric - although this is a malaysia article, wikipedia is broader than Malaysia. Further, they are both colonial anachronisms. OK, MA is better than MW but they are both still not up to wikipedia standards. Anyway, I've re-written it to remove this issue so it no longer has either. --Merbabu (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"Malay Archipelago" is not colonial anachronism. Furthermore, the current section fails to emphasize that early Malaysian history was intertwined with that of Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines. __earth (Talk) 17:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"Malay Archipelago" is an old fashioned term - at least by non-Malaysians. But, you've just shown excellent wording: "early Malaysian history was intertwined with that of Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines" - why not use that (or similar)? --Merbabu (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, further problems with MA are that the dominant part of Malaysia is actually not part of the archipelago but on the asian mainland, and also, the term Malay doesn't sit too well with Indonesians, Filipinos, etc. You do know the difference between the Malay (ethnic group) and the concept of the Malay race, right? --Merbabu (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
A Malay is not necessarily a Malaysian. On top of that, the usage of Malay Archipelago does not denote Malaysian dominance over the whole area. The fact that a good part of Malaysia is on the mainland has no relevance to the term Malay Archipelago. It makes reference to a geographical area, not political area, just like how Australasia does not suggest that Australia makes up the whole region. Besides, it is common to describe the area as the Malay Archipelago as could be observed in major encyclopedia like Britannia [1], Merriam-Webster and Encarta [2]. Perhaps, it would be helpful if you could produce reliable source to prove that the term Malay Archipelago is outdated. __earth (Talk) 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"A Malay is not necessarily a Malaysian?" - that is correct, but the vast majority are. MA & MW are based on the outmoded concept of Malay race which did include Indonesia and Philippines - the only current use of this term is by the Malaysian govt for political purposes. Malaysia's dominant group is the Malay (ethnic group) - these are distinct from say Javanese, Timorese, or Filipinos - and only number 30m at most - not 450m. Australasia is also an anachronistic term - just like MA and MW. Not a good reason to use MA. We should be making something better than Brittanica and Encarta.
Why are you so determined to use it when this better solution fixes the problems and is clearer? --Merbabu (talk) 18:27, 16 Febr;uary 2008 (UTC)
The fact a vast majority of Malays are Malaysians does not make being a Malay means being a Malaysia. And the number of Malays and the name Malay Archipelago is irrelevant. If it were, would you support the rename of the South China Sea into Southeast Asian Sea? And could you prove that only current use of the term is by the Malaysian government? I agree that that the term Malay World is outdated and so, let keep MW out of the discussion. The dispute here is MA, not MW. Why am I determined? Because I haven't seen proof. I on the other hand I provided proof that MA is a current term. And Australasia is anachronistic? Is that an opinion or fact? I don't think we can settle this dispute based on opinion. __earth (Talk) 19:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You've proven that it is a term, not the only term, or a valid term, and it is clearly problematic.
But, despite questions of the actual term MA, I ask again; with the better solution that you first mentioned and I implemented (ie, ie, just list the countries), why do you want to have MA? Listing the countries is more accurate, clearer, neutral and everyone knows what it means. Why doggedly stick to something that does none of this? --Merbabu (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned why. And I disagree about listing down of countries is better than MA. MA is accurate (the definition is clear), cleaner (just two words instead of 6 countries), neutral (it never meant to illustrate Malay dominance), current (usage backed by extremely reliable sources while proof to the contrary has yet to be supplied) and stick to historical accuracy instead of revisionism. Again, opinion cannot settle this. __earth (Talk) 04:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not so much that it is wrong, rather it is a weak explanation in a factual encyclopedia, and there is a clear, factually undisputed alternative that is much more informative to uninformed readers. In the face of the superior alternative, I wonder why the term "Malay" is so important to you.
  • MA is accurate (the definition is clear)
It's not clear if one hasn't heard it before. One must click on the link, or else, one might simply assume that it is a concept fundamentally dependent on Malaysia and miss the far bigger area and population of Indonesia, Philippines, etc. "MA" is simply a term for an area.
  • cleaner (just two words instead of 6 countries)
as much as like good prose, accuracy and clarity of info should always become before notions of "clean" writing.
  • neutral
That's like saying black is actually white, so to speak. It's not neutral (it's a Malaysian-supported term) - that's the whole point of this debate. More important still it is misleading for those who don't know.
  • "(it never meant to illustrate Malay dominance)"
Well, that unfortunately is the perception. Let's just stick to the facts and avoid labels that cloud the facts. Why not prove it by dropping your pushing of your loose use of the word Malay.
  • "current (usage backed by extremely reliable sources while proof to the contrary has yet to be supplied)
It doesn't matter whether it is listed in another encyclopedia, the question debated here is clarity for readers. How is the MA label actually clearer?
  • "historical accuracy instead of revisionism"
Again, that is like are trying to tell me black is white. Yes, it is accurate that "MA" is an historical term, but its not particularly informative and is misleading to those who don't know. It's based on the flawed concept of Malay race. Stick to explaining facts, rather than using misleading POV labels. use of the term could arguably be forgiven in other articles, but given the subject of this article "History of Malaysia", it is important that everything is strictly factual, accurate, and not potentially misleading.
The fact is, the term's usage here is not as informative as the other, would it not simply be better to use more factual, informative, and undisputed wording for the benefit of readers and the encyclopedia? regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you "wonder why the term "Malay" is so important to" it is not so much the term Malay, it is what it is being called as for centuries. But let's stop insinuating things and concentrate on the points. Else, I could also wonder why you are so uncomfortable with the term "Malay". To the points:

I make no bones of the fact I am "uncomfortable" with the "Malay" in this context - I thought that was abundantly clear. --Merbabu (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1 MA is accurate (the definition is clear)

It's not clear if one hasn't heard it before. One must click on the link, or else, one might simply assume that it is a concept fundamentally dependent on Malaysia and miss the far bigger area and population of Indonesia, Philippines, etc. "MA" is simply a term for an area.
That is a non-starter. There are thousands of terms a reader can be unfamiliar with. For instance, if a reader is unfamiliar with the term Mideast in a Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, one has to go to the Mideast link. In the article, it suffices to mention Mideast instead of describing what Mideast is. The same is true for MA. Besides, Wikipedia thrives on linkages and these linkages function exactly for clarification purposes.
I'm not talking about other articles, and your comparison is flawed. There is no country called "Middle East" or similar to get confused with. Once again, the question is the use of a flawed label (you yourself admit this) in place of a superior description. Again, what is the obsession with a a vague, un-informative term, over an indisputable phrase? I'd much rather see an article that is readable and to the point, that doesn't rely on having to switch to another article for clarification, or worse, instills false assumptions, when an alternative is so easy.--Merbabu (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

2 cleaner (just two words instead of 6 countries)

as much as like good prose, accuracy and clarity of info should always become before notions of "clean" writing.
Like I've said before, MA is already accurate, clear and concise.
For the reason's I've outlined, it is neither clean (Peninsula Malaysia? Thailand?), clear (one has to click on the link - as you've suggested - to find out that it isn't actually Malaysia but a much wider area), and you are mistaking "brevity" for "conciseness". Again, there is an indisputebale and clear alternative over the label you yourself say is flawed.--Merbabu (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

3 neutral

That's like saying black is actually white, so to speak. It's not neutral (it's a Malaysian-supported term) - that's the whole point of this debate. More important still it is misleading for those who don't know.
It is not a Malaysian supported term and it has been generally used widely. I've asked this and I'm asking it again. Where is your proof to say that it is mainly used in Malaysia? I on the other hand have supplied proof that it is being used by major encyclopedias. In fact, many Southeast Asian history books outside of Malaysia. Instead of providing proof, you have dismissed my proof by stating that wikipedia seeks to be better than those encyclopedias. Well, Wikipedia demands citation.
Even if it is not neutral, it is a established term and that should itself be enough. For instance, some time back, somebody pointed out that the Glorious Revolution is a biased name and thus, he wanted to change it to something less bias. But Wikipedia is in the business of recording, not re-writing history. The same case is applicable here. Historical revisionism is not our business.
As you suggest, it may not be neutral - thus, why use it simply because it is an established term (Negro is an established term). Further, Thailand is not part of the archipelago, and half Malaysia is on the Asian mainland. Yes, so let us record history clearly (list what we actually mean accurately) and not continue a misleading label of the past, when they don't even fit what we are saying. --Merbabu (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

4 "(it never meant to illustrate Malay dominance)"

Well, that unfortunately is the perception. Let's just stick to the facts and avoid labels that cloud the facts. Why not prove it by dropping your pushing of your loose use of the word Malay.
Like I said, it is an established term like the Glorious Revolution. We are not in the business of historical revisionism.
How am I revising? You are suggesting using a term that doesn't actually make the point correctly . In contrast, It's what we are reporting that is important, not the flawed labels we are using to do so. The Glorious Revolution is a specific event and a specific article - that's its name. You're trying to use "MA" for a concept that it just doesn't fit. You're using a hammer when you just want knife.--Merbabu (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

5 "current (usage backed by extremely reliable sources while proof to the contrary has yet to be supplied)

It doesn't matter whether it is listed in another encyclopedia, the question debated here is clarity for readers. How is the MA label actually clearer?
But it is better as mentioned above. And also refer to the Mideast example.
Mentioned where? You haven't shown it fits better - you've just said its and established term. It is an established term, but we want something that is (a) clear and (b) fits what the actual point is. Can't you see the difference?--Merbabu (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

6 "historical accuracy instead of revisionism"

Again, that is like are trying to tell me black is white. Yes, it is accurate that "MA" is an historical term, but its not particularly informative and is misleading to those who don't know. It's based on the flawed concept of Malay race. Stick to explaining facts, rather than using misleading POV labels. use of the term could arguably be forgiven in other articles, but given the subject of this article "History of Malaysia", it is important that everything is strictly factual, accurate, and not potentially misleading.
It maybe flawed because it is based on an old concept but it is an established term. Again, refer to Mideast and the Glorious Revolution examples. Another example is the Malayan Emergency (the Malayan Emergency as a title is not neutral but yet, it is used because it is an established term). MA is already an established and accurate term used to describe a defined geographic (not political) region. This is the fact and I've cited it. Why don't you cite yours? __earth (Talk) 08:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - it is indeed "established" and "flawed". But the point is also fit. Now let's use something that is not flawed and tells us exactly what we need to know. --Merbabu (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You replied to almost each very point of mine, but not convincingly - but anyone who uses the Glorious Revolution as justification is clearing missing the point. But you didn't reply to the the most important:

The fact is, the term's usage here is not as informative as the other, would it not simply be better to use more factual, informative, and undisputed wording for the benefit of readers and the encyclopedia? --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been provided with an indisputable alternative in place of a label you yourself describe as flawed. What's wrong with that?--Merbabu (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)