Comparing Colonial Legacies between South east Asian countries

Note : This post turned out really long, and sits in a more academic tone than I wanted it to. I just kept adding to this over many weeks but by bit, and it frankly feels unwieldy. But I haven't posted anything for a long time and I kept writing about this topic. I'm frankly uninterested in editing it either. I'm commiting to writing something lighter and shorter next.

Comparing the legacies left behind of European colonialism across Southeast Asia is fascinating in how that legacy is viewed in the postcolonial national narrative. Across my travels there I've now bore witness to ghosts of three European empires - French Indochina (Vietnam and Laos), British Malaya (Malaysia and Singapore), and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia). The places where nations frame their desired state narratives most explicitly, especially in the modern context of postcolonialism, is at the national museums. Comparing and contrasting these museums of each country provides a fascinating look into how the state and culture views their former overlords, which varies from outright contempt, shame, nearly forgotten, or even some begrudging respect or gratitude. In each country, the era of colonialism varied in length and brutality, and whether it was another entry in a long line of oppressors or the defining villain to overcome for the modern nation to be born. I find it fascinating to see how the nations view this chapter in retrospect, because it is always a unique viewpoint, blending justice, diplomacy, historiography, nationalism, and narrative that says much about who is saying it rather than truth itself. 

I'll note that I'm mostly talking about the narrative from the state. Not the views from the everyday people, which across the board I imagine are varied, generally negative towards colonialism, but largely ambivalent. People have to worry about what's for dinner, how to earn a living, not postcolonial legacy. Although the colonial era is within living memory in each of these countries, only the very elderly actually participated in the independence struggle now (Indonesia celebrated its 80th independence birthday last week), so most citizens have only ever known the postcolonial world. 

Indonesia

I'll begin with Indonesia, as I am killing time in Jakarta now, and I have just visited the National Museum yesterday afternoon and it is most fresh in my mind. Simply put, Indonesia hates the Dutch colonial era. There is little nuance or any good will towards the Dutch here. Which makes sense. The Dutch led a brutal, extractive, multi century long era of rule marked with countless wars and rebellions across the archipelago. Resistance, repression, rebellion, and eventual freedom from the Dutch is THE defining glue that holds this fractured country together. Across hundreds of languages, ethnic groups, histories, ecologies, different religions and belief systems, the Dutch rule is the shared ingredient that the national identity was born from. 

This was made very clear in the national museum, which devoted the largest independent exhibition to the story of struggle and independence against Dutch rule. The brutality of Dutch rule and the valiant stories of resistance spanning centuries were proudly displayed. Bamboo spears of the Batik, Aceh swords, a 19th century battle plan from the minangkabau, a Kris knife of the last Balinese king. These symbols of strength and resistance across a vast area are the unifying story of resistance and eventual victory against oppressors. It is the self proclaimed story of why Indonesia exists and exist as one people united despite their differences. 

I do believe the Dutch were especially cruel and extractive, even as far as European powers go. With the long history of the Dutch East India company rule, the goal always seemed solely on pure extraction of wealth and resources, at whatever cost. The pages of Dutch rule in Indonesia are filled with countless instances of massacre and genocide. The spice must flow. It never seemed enamoured by the false promises of “civilizing primitives" a la "The White Man’s Burden”. Nor was it too concerned with saving souls via conversion, which although no less exploitative, was genuinely quite an earnest motivation from the Spanish and Portuguese perspectives. The Dutch built comparatively little lasting infrastructure, fewer local educational institutions and were generally less interested in nation building compared to the French or British imperialists. They were in it for the bag, pure and simple. 

In Jakarta today, little remains of Old Batavia. What was once “The Queen of the East", and a true European port, little remains of that era. Seemingly intentionally pushed into the pages of forgotten history through rapid post independence development and urbanization. The small old town that remains is a couple blocks centered around the old Dutch government building, and a few scattered banks and shophouses in varying levels of maintenance. Within a 2 minute walk in any direction, it becomes practically indistinguishable from any other chaotic modern slice of Jakarta.

Vietnam and Laos

In old French Indochina, the French left more of a mark. Hanoi's old quarter is beloved and beautiful, blending Parisian blocks that look like the came out of Haussmann's Paris, only overgrown with tropical flora, with roadside food stalls and the iconic river of scooters and tuk tuks any pedestrian must brave across. Here, the national museum is housed in the aging colonial building that was once home to the French Ethnography department. It's a very modest national museum, but the story it tells is one of resistance against foreign invaders - but one that spans millenia. The Vietnamese people have been invaded, occupied, and overcome against foreign powers since the Han dynasty of China, and that resistance against their neighbors to the north seems more central to the civilizational story told in the museum than the comparatively brief French period. Compounded by the fact that French rule, brutal as it may have been, was immediately followed by years of American imperial aggression. And that was followed by yet another Chinese invasion. Vietnam could scarcely catch a break from invasion and occupation, so the national museum’s narrative on the French period had a tone of it being just one important chapter in a very long story. 

In Laos, the legacy of French imperialism felt very light and forgotten outside of Luang Prabang. In the highlands villages and small towns that I visited, there was scarcely any leftover buildings of french rule. It was the most peripheral holding in the imperial holdings, and the main presence of the colonizers seemed to be extractive agriculture. Luang Prabang was beloved by the french administration, and the architecture left behind is a beautiful blend of Lao and French architectural style. Therevada Buddhist temples sit alongside stately early 20th century European country homes. Like many cities in SE Asia, there's a deep local pride in the beauty of their cities left behind from colonial times, alongside a general resentment towards the evils of the colonial era. The stately colonial homes lining the old tree lined boulevards of Luang Prabang felt  almost like an old suburban street of a western city, except undeniably tropical.

Malaysia and Singapore

The former federated states of Malaya were the British possessions of Southeast Asia encompassing Malaysia and Singapore. Within the former possession however was a patchwork of different administrative divisions that resulted in different colonial legacies throughout the region. 

The coastal ports of Penang, Malacca, and Singapore made up the Straits Settlements, which were the prized mercantile urban centers along the strait of Malacca that brought in the bulk of the money for Britain. The mercantile importance of the ports made these the focus of British interests, and the bulk of the development and attention from the colonial administrations were centered here - Singapore the crown jewel of them all.

The importance of the strait for global trade goes back to dawn of trade and seafaring, but the city of Malacca gained global preeminence in the 14th century with the adoption of Islam by local rulers and the rise of sultanates in the region. This favored the presence of Islamic traders from India and the Middle East to propagate the religion and further trade throughout the Malay world. This also spurred the beginning of migration of Chinese merchants to the region, who mixed in with local customs to form a hybrid culture known as Peranakan, or Baba Nyonya, straits Chinese. European presence in the region then followed on the early 16th century with Portuguese takeover of Malacca. This diverted trade from the region towards Europe, and raised interests of the East Indies for other powers like the Dutch and the English who followed. The Dutch, along with a coalition of local rulers, would soon oust the Portuguese and continue European trade. Finally, the British formally enter the scene in the late 18th century with the acquisition of Penang. In 1819, Stamford Raffles founds Singapore at the tip of the Malay peninsula, and this quickly becomes the hub of the region, eclipsing Penang and Malacca. Chinese peranakan and more recent migrants from southern China flow to the straits settlements, along with South Asian laborers from British India. Over the 19th century and early 20th centuries, Britain slowly incorporates the various Malay sultanates that were found on the Malay peninsula, some as Protectorates and some as direct crown possessions, using a mix of trickery, diplomacy, economic pressure and force. The Malay population who are native to the land and found most in the interior sultanates were largely left out of the bustling economic hubs found in the straits settlements, and were largely relegated to agricultural cash crop cultivation like rubber and palm oil. The peranakan Chinese were relatively favored in the British ports of the straits settlements, and found economic opportunity (along with hardship and abuse), as merchants, entrepreneurs, clerks, and low level administrators. Indian laborers were brought in en masse to the cities to build and develop the bustling metropolises, but were often seen as lowly and kept out of opportunity. 

This history of the cities and the three primary ethnic groups still underpin the tensions and society of Malaysia and Indonesia today. Although Malaysia prides itself on its multiculturalism, it explicitly advances the historically underprivileged Malay majority with affirmative action programs, disadvantaging the historically more privileged Straits Chinese from educational and economic opportunities. The Indian community remains less advantaged in society, although this is all a broad brush and I do not want to give the impression of any sort of fixed racial hierarchy in the country, it's only the generalizations of observations I had. 

I say this background in order to frame the notion that the national makeup of both Malaysia and Singapore were largely created due to the long era of British rule. This is fairly unique in SE Asia, and does not have  a parallel as far as I can tell. The governmental institutions and much of the infrastructure is very British in both countries, and the built legacy of British empire is felt and seen heavily in daily life. From broad English fluency in both countries to the Commonwealth staple of driving on the left, it's influenced and shaped the modern two nations greatly.

Much however, contrasts the legacies of empire in the two countries. The general sentiment towards the period of colonial rule is noticeably more negative in Malaysia than Singapore. This makes sense, as the economic weight and trajectories throughout history and to the present day have been markedly different, and the national narrative of the Malaysian nation has understandable grievance towards the British who explicitly disadvantaged them and displaced them from power in their own native land. Singapore, on the other hand, was a city state founded by British trade interests, and the Chinese majority of the population largely have ancestors who migrated to the city state during British rule for economic opportunity. They were not exactly welcomed by the Malay sultanates before, and saw relative advantage and cooperation with British administrations compared to other peoples. The British invested heavily in turning Singapore a vital port of the global economy, and the young country, after being ejected from the Malaysian union after independence, has done remarkably well for itself. English is the uniting language for the many peoples that call Singapore home, English education was embraced since long in its history by the privileged classes, and a national identity of unity and forward thinking advanced by Singapore’s modern founder, Lee Kuan Yew, left little room for ill will towards the British era. A museum guide/ Singaporean ex civil servant said as much to me during my tour of the national museum. He explicitly said “thank goodness” for the British founding of Singapore, and went on to explain how him and Singaporeans as we know it would not have flourished under the rule of Malay sultans. 

Compare this to the national museum of Malaysia, which went into great detail of how British rulers divided and subjugated the various Malay states, and the extractive industries that abused and exploited Malay people. Industries like rubber plantations and mining. Extractive industries that stole wealth from the country and did little to set up the nation for prosperity. Malaysia being a devout Muslim nation also emphasizes its rich Islamic heritage and sees the sultanate of Malacca as a historical high point of the nation, being the epicenter of global trade and Islamic outreach. The period of foreign colonial, christian rule by the British is thus a era to be rebuked. Singapore being a secular nation does not hold this angle.

Lastly, I wanted to write of Malaysian Borneo, which had a different set of colonial experiences. I did not go to Borneo, so I cannot speak as to the legacy of colonialism here. But Malaysian Borneo, in the provinces of Sarawak and Sabah, it saw two strange colonial divisions distinct from the sultanate protectorates or strait settlements of the Malay peninsula. 

In Sabah, the land was a nakedly capitalist venture. In the mid 1800s, the land was leased to an American businessman by the sultanate of Brunei but plans to exploit the land fell through, and after some years was sold and ceded to a British corporation who ran the land as a plantation economy until WW2, after which it was directly ruled by the crown until independence. The most direct, modern capitalist venture of exploitative corporate extraction, the land being sold and traded between various corporate hands for western profit. 

In Sarawak, the tale is much stranger. In 1841, a British man named James Brooke arrived in the sultanate of Brunei and assisted the sultan in fighting pirates in the region, and was then rewarded with rule over Sarawak. He then goes on to found a hereditary dynasty, ruling as relatively benevolent kings - rajahs - and the English family ruled the kingdom until WW2 and Japanese occupation of Borneo. The dynasty was apparently committed to preventing exploitation of the native peoples by foreign powers and corporatios, and adopted local customs and respected local traditions. At least according the some Reddit threads that I read from locals living in Sarawak today, they remain relatively beloved in memory. “Speaking as a Sarawakian, most of us like James Brooke and people back in the days were genuinely upset when he relinquished his power.” But then the same thread devolves into an argument from someone else who sees him as a rich foreign colonizer. But then the original commenter replies that the family is only hated by some because they ended slavery and thus disadvantaged certain ethnic groups of the region. I can't speak to it, I don't know. But it is a fascinating and bizarre colonial history. And it goes to show the diversity of colonial experiences found in the relatively small nation of Malaysia. From the mercantile multicultural Straits Settlements, to protectionist sultanates of the federated states, to corporate colonies run solely for plantation economies, to a semi-benevolent kingdom ran by eccentric Englishmen in a remote jungle. 

Japan & Conclusion

I also neglected to talk about the role of the Japanese here, which is a shame. It's a major catalyst of decolonization in Asia, and the legacy of brutal Japanese imperialism across its own empire in Korea and Taiwan and China need to be explored. In nearly every place in Southeast Asia, Japanese forces invaded and occupied. In some areas they were initially welcomed, some places saw terror and brutality right away. But Japan undeniably broke the facade of European invincibility and gave an inevitability for decolonization across Asia. It armed local militias that would become independence groups. It dismantled European institutions. It propogandized anti colonial messages, and spewed its own imperialism, but it shattered the reality that the colonized knew and the war opened space for reality of independence.

All in all, I have written too much now and to what thesis I'm not entirely sure. The legacies of colonialism in each country is different. The way that each country remembers this era of history is different. Aside from Singapore, it's nearly all negative of course, but the shades of negativity vary greatly. In Indonesia, breaking free from the brutal oppression of the Dutch is the unifying story of the sprawling, diverse archipelago. The Vietnamese see liberation from the French as a proud entry in a long lineage of fighting for independence. Malaysia and Singapore owes the face of the nation as we know it today to British rule, but with different struggles and modern histories, one has a decidedly more resentful tone  than the other.