Sei sulla pagina 1di 21

Filipino nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Philippines.svgFilipino nationalism refers to


the awakening and support towards a political identity associated with
modern Philippines leading to a wide-ranging campaign for political, social, and
economic freedom in the Philippines. This gradually emerged out of various political and
armed movements throughout most of the Spanish East Indies—albeit has long been
fragmented and inconsistent with contemporary definitions of such nationalism—as a
consequence of more than three centuries of Spanish rule. These movements are
characterized by the upsurge of anti-colonialist sentiments and ideals which peaked in
the late 20th century led mostly by the ilustrado or landed, educated elites,
whether peninsulares, insulares, or native (Indio). This served as the backbone of the first
nationalist revolution in Asia, the Philippine Revolution of 1896.[1] The modern concept
would later be fully actualized upon the inception of a Philippine state with its
contemporary borders after being granted independence by the United States by the
1946 Treaty of Manila.

The start of Filipino nationalism (1760's–1820's)[edit]

The term "Filipino" originally referred to the Spanish criollos of the Philippines. During their
333-year rule of the Philippines, the Spanish rulers referred the natives as indios.[5]

Also during the colonial era, the Spaniards born in the Philippines, who were more known
as insulares, criollos, or Creoles, were also called "Filipinos." Spanish-born Spaniards or
mainland Spaniards residing in the Philippines were referred to as Peninsulares. Those of
mixed ancestry were referred to as Mestizos. The Creoles, despite being regarded by
the Peninsulares as inferior to them, had enjoyed various government and church positions,
and composed the majority of the government bureaucracy.[6] The sense of national
consciousness came from the Creoles, who now regard themselves as "Filipino". It was brought
to its advent by three major factors: 1) economy, 2) education and 3) secularization of
parishes. These factors contributed to the birth of the Filipino Nationalism. The opening of the
Philippines to the international or world trade, the rise of the middle class, and the influx of
Liberal ideas from Europe were only a few examples of how the Philippines developed into a
stable country. "The first manifestation of Philippine nationalism followed in the decades of
the 1880s and the 1890s, with a reform or propaganda movement, conducted both in
Spain and in the Philippines, for the purpose of “propagandizing” Philippine conditions in the
hopes that desired changes in the social, political and economic life of the Filipinos would
come about through peaceful means." [7]

Effect of the progress during the period (1760's–1820's)[edit]


The earliest signs of the effect to Filipino Nationalism by the developments mentioned could
be seen in the writings of Luis Rodríguez Varela, a Creole educated in liberal France and
highly exposed to the Age of Enlightenment. Knighted under the Order of Carlos III, Varela
was perhaps the only Philippine Creole who was actually part of European nobility. The
court gazette in Madrid announced that he was to become a Conde and from that point on
proudly called himself El Conde Filipino.[1] He championed the rights of Filipinos in the
islands and slowly made the term applicable to anyone born in the Philippines.

Economyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:16th_century_Portuguese_Spanish_trade_routes.p
ng

The decline of Galleon trade between Manila and Acapulco was caused by the arrival of the
ship Buen Consejo in 1765. The Buen Consejo took the shorter route[1][clarification
needed] via Cape of Good Hope, a rocky headland on the Atlantic coast controlled by Portugal.
The journey through the Cape of Good Hope takes three months from Spain to the Philippines,
whereas the journey of the galleon trade takes five months. The event proved that Portugal
was already past its prime in controlling the route via the Cape of Good Hope, which was
already under Dutch control as early as 1652. Shorter journeys to and from Spain brought
faster trade and quicker spread of ideas from Europe.[1] Also, the growing sense of economic
insecurity in the later years of the 18th century led the Creoles to turn their attention to
agricultural production. The Creoles gradually changed from a very government-dependent
class into capital-driven entrepreneurs. Their turning of attention towards guilded soil caused
the rise of the large private haciendas. Various government and church positions were
transferred to the roles of the Peninsulares who were characterized mostly in the 19th
century Philippine history as corrupt bureaucrats.

During the 1780s, two institutions were established in order to enhance the economic
capacity of the Philippines. These were the Economic Societies of Friends of the Country and
the Royal Company of the Philippines. The former, introduced by Governor-General Jose
Basco in 1780, was composed of leading men in business, industry and profession, the society
was tasked to explore and exploit the natural resources of the archipelago. It offered local and
foreign scholarships, besides training grants in agriculture and established an academy of
design. It was also credited to the carabao ban of 1782, the formation of the silversmiths and
gold beaters guild and the construction of the first papermill in the Philippines in 1825. The
latter, created by Carlos III on March 10, 1785, was granted exclusive monopoly of bringing
to Manila; Chinese and Indian goods and shipping them directly to Spain via the Cape of
Good Hope. It was stiffly objected by the Dutch and English who saw it as a direct attack on
their trade of Asian goods. It was also vehemently opposed by the traders of the Galleon trade
who saw it as competition.[8]

Education
During the administration of Governor-General Jose Raon, a royal order from Spain, which
stated that every village or barrio must have a school and a teacher, was implemented. The
implementation of the order expanded the reach of basic education during the Spanish era.
Also, during the 18th century, modern agricultural tools made many people leave farming
for pursuing academic and intellectual courses. After the arrival of Buen Consejo, the
Philippines had more direct contact to Europe and the ideas circulating. Thus, the Philippines
was influenced by the principles during the Age of Enlightenment and radical changes during
the French Revolution.[1]

Secularization of parishes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_III_of_Spain_high_resolution.jpgBy royal decree
on February 27, 1767, King Carlos III ordered the Jesuits to be expelled from Spain, and
from all her colonies. The decree reached the Philippines in early 1768, wherein
Governor-General Raon tried to do the Jesuits a favor by delaying the implementation of
the royal order in exchange of bribes. This gave the Jesuit priests to hide all of their
possessions and destroy documents that could be held against them, which were supposed
to be confiscated. The first batch of Jesuits, numbered 64, left Manila only by May 17,
1768.[9] This event caused Raon to face prosecution from the next Governor-General, as
ordered by the King of Spain. Raon died before the judgment for him was laid.[1]

The expulsion of Jesuit priests from the country resulted to a shortage of priests in the
parishes. This prompted the current Manila archbishop, Basilio Sancho de Santa Justa, to
launch his favorite project: secularization of Philippine parishes. Sancho reasoned out that
priests were only sent to facilitate missions to areas that are not yet much Christianized.
Native priests must be ordained to facilitate the parishes since the Philippines was already a
Christian country. Sancho recruited every Indio he got to become priests. There was even a
joke at the time that there were no one to man the galleons anymore, since Sancho had
made them all priests. The secularization partly failed because many members of the newly
formed native clergy soiled the parishes with their ignorance, sloth, and the like. One
achievement of Sancho's secularization project was the establishment of a school for native
boys who aspire to become priests.

Further progress of Filipino Nationalism (1820's–1860)


At this stage, the Creoles slowly introduced their own reforms. Parishes began to have native
priests at the time of Archbishop Sancho. The Philippines was given representation in
the Spanish Cortes three times (last time was from 1836–1837).[10] However, on June 1,
1823, a Creole revolt broke out in Manila led by the Mexican-blood Creole captain Andres
Novales.[11] The revolt, caused by an order from Spain that declared military officers
commissioned in the Peninsula (Spain) should outrank all those appointed in the Colonies,
saw Manila cheering with Novales's cry of "Viva la Independencia" (English: Long Live
Independence). The revolt prompted the government to deport Varela together with other
Creoles [allegedly known as Los Hijos del País (English: The Children of the Country)], after
being associated with the Creole reformists. The Novales Revolt would soon be followed by
another Creole plot of secession known as the Palmero Conspiracy, which was caused by the
replacement of Creole public officials, especially provincial governors, with Peninsulars.

Economic developments also did a part in making up the shape of Filipino Nationalism. Before
the opening of Manila to foreign trade, the Spanish authorities discouraged foreign merchants
from residing in the colony and engaging in business.[12] In 1823,
Governor-General Mariano Ricafort promulgated an edict prohibiting foreign merchants
from engaging in retail trade and visiting the provinces for purposes of trade. However, by
the royal decree of September 6, 1834, the privileges of the Company were abolished and
the port of Manila was opened to trade.[13]

Shortly after opening Manila to world trade, the Spanish merchants began to lose their
commercial supremacy in the Philippines. In 1834, restrictions against foreign traders were
relaxed when Manila became an open port. By the end of 1859, there were 15 foreign firms
in Manila: seven of which were British, three American, two French, two Swiss and one
German.[13] In response to Sinibaldo de Mas' recommendations, more ports were opened by
Spain to world trade. The ports of Sual, Pangasinan, Iloilo and Zamboanga were opened in
1855. Cebu was opened in 1860, Legazpi and Tacloban in 1873.[14] Like Japan that
rushed into modernization and national transformation during the Meiji Restoration, the
Philippines and its people saw that the Spanish and its government is not as invincible as it
was two centuries before. The Indios and the Creoles became more influenced by foreign ideas
of liberalism as the Philippines became more open to foreigners. Foreigners who visited the
Philippines had noticed the speed of the circulation of the ideas of Voltaire and Thomas Paine.
Songs about liberty and equality were also being sung at the time. Some Spanish who foresaw
a "fast verging" Indio takeover of the archipelago began to send money out of the
Philippines.[1]

First Propaganda Movement (1860–


1872)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jose_burgos_PG.jpg
Varela would then retire from politics but his nationalism was carried on by another Creole,
one Pedro Peláez, who campaigned for the rights of Filipino priests (Creoles, Mestizos and
Indios) and pressed for secularization of Philippine parishes.[1] He reasoned out the same
point Sancho had, friars are for missions on areas that are still pagan. The Latin American
revolutions and decline of friar influence in Spain resulted in the increase of the regular
clergy (Peninsular friars) in the Philippines. Filipino priests (Creoles, Mestizos and Indios) were
being replaced by Spanish friars (Peninsulares) and Peláez demanded explanation as to the
legality of replacing a secular with regulars—which is in contradiction to the Exponi nobis.
Peláez brought the case to the Vatican and almost succeeded if not for an earthquake that
cut his career short. The earthquake struck on June 3, 1863, during the feast of Corpus
Christi. The ideology would be carried by his more militant disciple, José Burgos.
Demonstrations became a norm in Manila during the 1860s. One of the first of a series of
demonstrations was during the transfer of the remains of former Governor-General Simón
de Anda y Salazar from the Manila Cathedral after the 1863 earthquake. Anda was a hero
for the natives because he fought friar power during his term, and he established a separate
government in Bacolor during the British occupation of Manila. On the day of the transfer, a
young Indio priest approached the coffin and laid a laurel wreath dedicated by "The Secular
Clergy of the Philippines" to Don Simón de Anda. Then, a young Indio student went to the
coffin and offered a crown of flowers. Lastly, a number of gobernadorcillos went to do their
own salutations for Don Simón de Anda. Since none of those acts were in the program, the
Spanish saw that it was a secretly planned demonstration. Though no one told who the
mastermind was, there were rumors that it was Padre Burgos.[1] The demonstrations got
more frequent and more influential during the liberal regime of Governor-General Carlos
María de la Torre (1869–1871). Only two weeks after the arrival of de la Torre as
Governor-General, Burgos and Joaquin Pardo de Tavera led a demonstration at the Plaza de
Santa Potenciana. Among the demonstrators were Jose Icaza, Jaime Baldovino Gorospe,
Jacobo Zobel, Ignacio Rocha, Manuel Genato and Maximo Paterno. The demo cry was "Viva
Filipinas para los Filipinos!". In November 1870, a student movement, denounced as a riot
or motin, at the University of Santo Tomas formed a committee to demand reforms on the
school and its curricula. It later announced support of Philippine autonomy and recognition of
the Philippines as a province of Spain. The committee was headed by Felipe
Buencamino.[15]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carlos_Maria_de_la_Torre.jpg

During this period, a secret society of reformists met in a cistern under a well at the house of
Father Mariano Gómez. The society, headed by Jose Maria Basa, worked mainly on a Madrid
journal called the Eco de Filipinas (not to be confused with the El Eco de Filipinas that was
published much later, in September 1890). The journal exposed problems in the Philippines
and pressed on reforms that they seek for the country. Among the members were Burgos,
Maximo Paterno, Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, and Father Agustin Mendoza. It served as a
precursor to La Solidaridad. However, Burgos died after the infamous Cavite Mutiny, which
was pinned on Burgos as his attempt to start a Creole Revolution and make himself president
of the Philippines or Rey Indio.[16] The death of José Burgos, and the other alleged
conspirators, Mariano Gómez and Jacinto Zamora on February 17, 1872, seemingly ended
the entire Creole movement. Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo y Gutiérrez unleashed his
reign of terror in order to prevent the spread of the Creole ideology—Filipino nationalism.

Another event in history created an impact on Filipino nationalism during this period. Before
1869, the route through the Cape of Good Hope proved to be a shortest available journey to
Europe by Indios and Creoles alike. The journey takes 3 months travel by sea. On November
17, 1869, the Suez Canal opened after 10 years of construction work. At its advent, the
journey from the Philippines to Spain was further reduced to one month. This allowed a
much faster spread of European ideology and an increase of Filipino presence in Europe itself.
The Propaganda Movement would later benefit from the Suez Canal for the shorter route it
provided.

Second Propaganda Movement (1872–1892)


Main article: Propaganda Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ilustrados_1890.jpgThe events of 1872 however


invited the other colored section of the Ilustrados (intellectually enlightened class), the
growing middle-class natives, to at least do something to preserve the Creole ideals.
Seeing the impossibility of a revolution against Izquierdo and the Governor-General's
brutal reign convinced the Ilustrados to get out of the Philippines and continue
propaganda in Europe. This massive propaganda upheaval from 1872 to 1892 is now
known as the Second Propaganda Movement.[17] Through their writings and
orations, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano López Jaena and José Rizal sounded the
trumpets of Filipino nationalism and brought it to the level of the masses. The
propagandists mainly aimed for representation of the Philippines in the Cortes Generales,
secularization of the clergy, legalization of Spanish and Filipino equality, among others.
Their main work was the newspaper called La Solidaridad (Solidarity), which was first
published at Barcelona on December 13, 1888.[18] Rizal, the foremost figure of the
propagandists, created the Noli Me Tángere (published 1887) and El
filibusterismo (published 1891). It rode the increasing anti-Spanish (anti-Peninsulares)
sentiments in the islands and pushed the people towards revolution, rather than
discourage them that a revolution was not the solution for independence.

Post-propaganda era
By July 1892, Rizal returned to the Philippines and established a progressive organization he
called the La Liga Filipina (The Philippine League).[19] However, the organization collapsed
after Rizal's arrest and deportation to Dapitan on July 7. At the same day, a Philippine
revolutionary society was founded by Ilustrados led by Andrés Bonifacio, Deodato
Arellano, Ladislao Diwa, Teodoro Plata and Valentín Díaz.[20] The main aim of the
organization, named Katipunan, was to win Philippine independence through a revolution
and establish a republic thereafter.[21] The rise of the Katipunan signaled the end of peaceful
propaganda for reforms.

Philippine Revolution
Main article: Philippine Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philippines_Flag_Original.svgThe Katipunan reached an


overwhelming membership and attracted almost the lowly of the Filipino class.[citation
needed] In June 1896, Bonifacio sent an emissary to Dapitan to reach Rizal's support, but
the latter refused for an armed revolution. On August 19, 1896, Katipunan was
discovered by a Spanish friar which started the Philippine Revolution.

The revolution flared up initially into the eight provinces of Central Luzon. General Emilio
Aguinaldo, a member of the Katipunan, spread an armed resistance through Southern
Tagalog region where he liberated Cavite towns little by little. Leadership conflicts between
Bonifacio and Aguinaldo culminated in the Imus Assembly in December 1896 and Tejeros
Convention in March 1897. Aguinaldo was elected in absentia as President of an insurgent
revolutionary government by the Tejeros convention. Bonifacio, acting as Supremo of the
Katipunan, declared the convention proceedings void and attempted to reassert leadership of
the revolution. In late April Aguinaldo fully assumed presidential office after consolidating his
position with revolutionary leaders. Aguinaldo's government then ordered the arrest of
Bonifacio, who stood trial on charges of sedition and treason against Aguinaldo's government
and conspiracy to murder Aguinaldo, resulting in his conviction and execution

In December 1897, Aguinaldo agreed to the Pact of Biak-na-Bato with the Spanish colonial
government. Aguinaldo and his revolutionary leadership were exiled to Hong Kong. However,
not all of the revolutionary generals complied with the agreement. One, General Francisco
Makabulos, established a Central Executive Committee to serve as the interim
government until a more suitable one was created.

Independence declaration and the Philippine-American War[edit]


Main articles: First Philippine Republic and Philippine–American War

In 1898, as conflicts continued in the Philippines, the USS Maine, having been sent
to Cuba because of U.S. concerns for the safety of its citizens during an ongoing Cuban
revolution, exploded and sank in Havana harbor. This event precipitated the Spanish–
American War.[22] After Commodore George Dewey defeated the Spanish squadron at
Manila, a German squadron, led by Vice Admiral Otto von Diederichs, arrived in Manila and
engaged in maneuvers which Dewey, seeing this as obstruction of his blockade, offered
war—after which the Germans backed down.[23]
The U.S. invited Aguinaldo to return to the Philippines in the hope he would rally Filipinos
against the Spanish colonial government. Aguinaldo arrived on May 19, 1898, via transport
provided by Dewey. By the time U.S. land forces had arrived, the Filipinos had taken control
of the entire island of Luzon, except for the walled city of Intramuros. On June 12, 1898,
Aguinaldo declared the independence of the Philippines in Kawit, Cavite, establishing
the First Philippine Republic under Asia's first democratic constitution, the Malolos
Constitution, an insurgency against Spanish rule.[24]

Spain and the United States sent commissioners to Paris to draw up the terms of the Treaty
of Paris which ended the Spanish–American War. In the treaty, Spain ceded the Philippines,
along with Guam and Puerto Rico, to the United States. Cession of the Philippines involved
payment by the U.S. of US$20,000,000.00.[25] U.S. President McKinley described the
acquisition of the Philippines as "... a gift from the gods", saying that since "they were unfit for
self-government, ... there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate
the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them", [26][27] in spite of the Philippines
having been already Christianized by the Spanish over the course of several centuries.

Filipino forces under Aguinaldo as President of the insurgent Philippine Republic resisted the
U.S. occupation, resulting in the Philippine–American War (1899–1913). The
poorly-equipped Filipino troops were easily overpowered by American troops in open combat,
but they were formidable opponents in guerrilla warfare. Malolos, the revolutionary capital,
was captured on March 31, 1899. Aguinaldo and his government escaped however,
establishing a new capital at San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. On June 5, 1899, Antonio Luna,
Aguinaldo's most capable military commander, was killed by Aguinaldo's guards in an
apparent assassination while visiting Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija to meet with
Aguinaldo.[28] Aguinaldo dissolved the regular army on November 13 and ordered the
establishment of decentralized guerrilla commands in each of several military
zones.[29] Another key general, Gregorio del Pilar, was killed on December 2, 1899 in
the Battle of Tirad Pass—a rear guard action to delay the Americans while Aguinaldo made
good his escape through the mountains.

Aguinaldo was captured at Palanan, Isabela on March 23, 1901 and was brought to Manila.
Convinced of the futility of further resistance, he swore allegiance to the United States and
issued a proclamation calling on his compatriots to lay down their arms, officially bringing an
end to the war. However, sporadic insurgent resistance to American rule continued in various
parts of the Philippines, notably insurgencies such as the Irreconcilables and the Moro
Rebellion, until 1913.

The Insular Government and the Commonwealth era (1901–


1941)
Insular Government
See also: Insular Government

The 1902 Philippine Organic Act was a constitution for the Insular Government, as the U.S.
civil administration was known. This was a form of territorial government that reported to
the Bureau of Insular Affairs. The act provided for a governor general appointed by the U.S.
president and an elected lower house. It also disestablished the Catholic Church as the state
religion.

Two years after completion and publication of a census, a general election was conducted for
the choice of delegates to a popular assembly. An elected Philippine Assembly was convened
in 1907 as the lower house of a bicameral legislature, with the Philippine Commission as
the upper house. Every year from 1907 the Philippine Assembly and later the Philippine
Legislature passed resolutions expressing the Filipino desire for independence.

Philippine nationalists led by Manuel Quezón and Sergio Osmeña enthusiastically endorsed
the draft Jones Bill of 1912, which provided for Philippine independence after eight years,
but later changed their views, opting for a bill which focused less on time than on the
conditions of independence. The nationalists demanded complete and absolute independence
to be guaranteed by the United States, since they feared that too-rapid independence from
American rule without such guarantees might cause the Philippines to fall into Japanese
hands. The Jones bill was rewritten and passed Congress in 1916 with a later date of
independence.[30]

The law, officially the Philippine Autonomy Act but popularly known as the Jones Law,
served as the new organic act (or constitution) for the Philippines. Its preamble stated that
the eventual independence of the Philippines would be American policy, subject to the
establishment of a stable government. The law maintained the Governor General of the
Philippines, appointed by the President of the United States, but established a bicameral
Philippine Legislature to replace the elected Philippine Assembly (lower house); it replaced the
appointive Philippine Commission (upper house) with an elected senate.[31]

The Filipinos suspended their independence campaign during the First World War and
supported the United States against Germany. After the war they resumed their
independence efforts. The Philippine legislature funded an independence mission to the U.S. in
1919. The mission departed Manila on February 28 and met in the U.S. with and presented
their case to Secretary of War Newton D. Baker. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, in his 1921
farewell message to Congress, certified that the Filipino people had performed the condition
imposed on them as a prerequisite to independence, declaring that, this having been done,
the duty of the U.S. is to grant Philippine independence.[32]

After the first independence mission, public funding of such missions was ruled illegal.
Subsequent independence missions in 1922, 1923, 1930, 1931 1932, and two missions in
1933 were funded by voluntary contributions. Numerous independence bills were submitted
to the U.S. Congress, which passed the Hare–Hawes–Cutting Bill on December 30, 1932. U.S.
President Herbert Hoover vetoed the bill on January 13, 1933. Congress overrode the veto
on January 17, and the Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act became U.S. law. The law promised
Philippine independence after 10 years, but reserved several military and naval bases for the
United States, as well as imposing tariffs and quotas on Philippine exports. The law also
required the Philippine Senate to ratify the law. Quezon urged the Philippine Senate to reject
the bill, which it did. Quezon himself led the twelfth independence mission to Washington to
secure a better independence act. The result was the Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934 which
was very similar to the Hare–Hawes–Cutting Act except in minor details. The Tydings–
McDuffie Act was ratified by the Philippine Senate. The law provided for the granting of
Philippine independence by 1946.

Commonwealth era
See also: 1934 Philippine Constitutional Convention election

The Tydings-McDuffie Act provided for the drafting and guidelines of a Constitution, for a
10-year "transitional period" as the Commonwealth of the Philippines before the granting
of Philippine independence. On May 5, 1934, the Philippines legislature passed an act setting
the election of convention delegates. Governor General Frank Murphy designated July 10 as
the election date, and the convention held its inaugural session on July 30. The completed
draft constitution was approved by the convention on February 8, 1935, approved by U.S.
President Franklin Roosevelt on March 23, and ratified by popular vote on May 14.

On September 17, 1935, presidential elections were held. Candidates included former
president Emilio Aguinaldo, the Iglesia Filipina Independiente leader Gregorio Aglipay, and
others. Manuel L. Quezon and Sergio Osmeña of the Nacionalista Party were proclaimed the
winners, winning the seats of president and vice-president, respectively. The Commonwealth
Government was inaugurated on the morning of November 15, 1935, in ceremonies held on
the steps of the Legislative Building in Manila. The event was attended by a crowd of around
300,000 people.[1]

Japanese occupation and the Second Republic (1941–1945)


Main articles: Japanese occupation of the Philippines and Second Philippine Republic

Japan launched a surprise attack on the Clark Air Base in Pampanga on December 8, 1941,
just ten hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Aerial bombardment, which destroyed most
of the American aircraft in the islands, was followed by landings of ground troops on Luzon.
The defending Philippine and United States troops were under the command of
General Douglas MacArthur. Under the pressure of superior numbers, the defending forces
withdrew to the Bataan Peninsula and to the island of Corregidor at the entrance to Manila
Bay. On January 2, 1942, General MacArthur declared the capital city, Manila, an open
city to prevent its destruction.[33] The Philippine defense continued until the final surrender
of United States-Philippine forces on the Bataan Peninsula in April 1942 and on Corregidor
in May of the same year.

The Philippine Executive Commission was established in 1942 with Jorge B. Vargas as its
first Chairman. The PEC was created as the temporary care-taker government of the
Greater Manila area and eventually of the whole Philippines during the Japanese occupation
of the country during World War II. On May 6, 1943, Japanese Premier Hideki Tojo during
a visit to the Philippines pledged to establish the Republic of the Philippines. This pledge of
Tojo prompted the "KALIBAPI," to call for a convention on June 19, 1943 and twenty of its
members were elected to form the Preparatory Commission for Independence. The
commission tasked to draft a constitution for the Philippine Republic and elected head
was José P. Laurel. The Preparatory Commission presented its draft Constitution on
September 4, 1943 and three days later, the "KALIBAPI" general assembly ratified the draft
Constitution.

The Japanese-sponsored establishment of the Republic of the Philippines was proclaimed on


October 14, 1943 with José P. Laurel being sworn-in as President.[34] On the same day,
a "Pact of Alliance" was signed between the new Philippine Republic and the Japanese
government that was ratified two days later by the National Assembly. The Philippine
Republic was immediately recognized by Japan, and in the succeeding days by
Germany, Thailand, Manchukuo, Burma, Croatia and Italy while neutral Spain sent its
"greetings."

In October 1944, General Douglas MacArthur, the overall commander of American forces in
the Pacific, had gathered enough additional troops and supplies to begin the retaking of the
Philippines, landing with Sergio Osmeña who had assumed the Presidency after Quezon's
death. The battles entailed long fierce fighting; some of the Japanese continued to fight until
the official surrender of the Empire of Japan on September 2, 1945. The Second Republic
was dissolved earlier, on August 14. After their landing, Filipino and American forces also
undertook measures to suppress the Huk movement, which was founded to fight the
Japanese Occupation.

Third Republic (1946–1972)


On July 4, 1946, representatives of the United States of America and of the Republic of the
Philippines signed a Treaty of General Relations between the two governments. The treaty
provided for the recognition of the independence of the Republic of the Philippines as of July
4, 1946, and the relinquishment of American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands. [36]

From 1946 to 1961, the Philippines observed Independence Day on July 4. However, on
May 12, 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal issued Presidential Proclamation No. 28
proclaiming June 12, 1962 as a special public holiday throughout the Philippines. [37][38] In
1964, Republic Act No. 4166 changed the date of Independence Day from July 4 to June 12
and renamed the July 4 holiday as Philippine Republic Day.[39]

“ ”
But in the hearts of eighteen million Filipinos, the American flag now flies more
triumphantly than ever.
– President Manuel Roxas addressing the crowd after the flag-raising ceremony on July 4,
1946[1]

Despite eventual success of Filipinos to claim political and social independence, a new type of
colonialism rose in the country. It is known as neocolonialism. Neocolonialism is defined as the
practice of using economic, linguistic, and cultural forces to control a country (usually former
European colonies in Africa or Asia) in lieu of direct military or political control. Since most of
the country was ravaged by the Second World War, the Philippines depended mainly on the
United States to restore her industries and businesses.[40] The country only began to build
local industries to reduce economic dependence on foreign nations during the term of
President Ferdinand Marcos.[40] Nationalism in the real sense remained stuck up in a false
Filipinistic posture.[40] Examples of governmental efforts to enforce nationalistic policies
began with former President Ramon Magsaysay sworn into office wearing the Barong
Tagalog, a first by any Philippine president. It was fervently followed by the nationalist
program "Filipino First Policy" of Carlos P. Garcia.[41]

Radical nationalism
After World War II, the Hukbalahap (Filipino: Hukbong Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon) guerillas
continued the revolutionary struggle to establish a Communist government in the
Philippines.[40] Nationalism in the real sense remained stuck up in a false Filipinistic
posture.[40] The radical wing of the nationalists, led by peasant leader Luis Taruc, renamed
themselves as the Hukbong Magpalaya ng Bayan (English: Army to Liberate the People). At
its heyday, the Huk movement commanded an estimated 170,000 armed troops with a base
of at least two million civilian supporters.[42] Ramon Magsaysay, which was then the
Secretary of National Defense during the Quirino administration, was instrumental in halting
the Communist movement.

In 1964, Jose Maria Sison co-founded the Kabataang Makabayan (Patriotic Youth) with Nilo
S. Tayag. This organization rallied the Filipino youth against the Vietnam War, against the
Marcos presidency, and corrupt politicians. On December 26, 1968, he formed and chaired
the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), an organization
within the Communist Party founded on Marxist–Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought, stemming
from his own experiences as a youth leader and a labor and land reform activist. This is
known as the "First Great Rectification" movement where Sison and other radical youths
criticized the existing Party's leadership and failure. The reformed CPP included Maoism
within the political line as well as the struggle for a National Democratic Revolution in
two-stages, consisting of a protracted people's war as its first part to be followed by
a socialist revolution.

Radical nationalism in the Philippines emphasized the Philippine Revolution under Bonifacio
as unfinished and henceforth continued, under working class leadership. Writers such as
Teodoro Agoncillo and Renato Constantino advocated patriotism by means of revisiting
Filipino history in a Filipino perspective.

Martial law and the Fourth Republic (1972–1986)


Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos was a period marked by massive government corruption,
cronyism, economic recession, and gross violations of human rights.[43][44][45]

On September 22, 1972, then-Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile was reportedly
ambushed by communists in San Juan, killing his driver but leaving him unscathed. The
Enrile ambush was widely believed to have been faked.[43][46][47] The assassination attempt,
the growing threat of the New People's Army, and citizen unrest, were used by Marcos as
justification to declare Proclamation No. 1081, which he signed on September 17 (postdated
to September 21), the same day.[48] Marcos, who henceforth ruled by decree, curtailed press
freedom and other civil liberties, abolished Congress, shut down media establishments, and
ordered the arrest of opposition leaders and militant activists.[49]
The first years of martial law saw an increase in military hardware and personnel in the
Philippines.[48] Agricultural production, especially in rice production (which increased 42% in
8 years),[50] was increased to decrease dependence on food importation. Philippine culture
and arts were promoted with the establishment of institutions such as the National Arts
Center. However, to help finance a number of economic development projects, the Marcos
government borrowed large amounts of money from international lenders.[51][52] Thus,
proving that the country was not yet fully independent economically. The Philippines'
external debt rose from $360 million (US) in 1962 to $28.3 billion in 1986, making the
Philippines one of the most indebted countries in Asia.[51]

The Fifth Republic (1986–present)


From February 22–25, 1986, many demonstrations against Marcos took place on a long
stretch of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue. The event, known as the People Power Revolution,
involved many famous figures such as Archbishop Jaime Sin, Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos and
Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile. Finally, on February 25, the Marcos family was
transported by U.S. Air Force HH-3E rescue helicopters to Clark Air Base to Angeles City,
Pampanga, about 83 kilometers north of Manila, before boarding US Air Force DC-9
Medivac and C-141B planes bound for Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, and finally to
Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii where Marcos arrived on February 26. Many people around
the world rejoiced and congratulated Filipinos they knew. Corazon Aquino succeeded as
president of the Philippines.

In 1986, Aquino adopted Original Pilipino Music (OPM, defined as "any musical composition
created by a Filipino, whether the lyrics be in Pilipino, English or in any other language or
dialect") by requiring hourly broadcasts of OPM songs on all radio programs having musical
formats in order to conserve, promote and popularize the nation's historical and cultural
heritage and resources, as well as artistic creations, and to give patronage to arts and
letters.[53] Singers like Regine Velasquez, Randy Santiago, Ogie Alcasid, Gary
Valenciano, Manilyn Reynes, Donna Cruz and others are contributed to the President's
implementation of Filipino music over the airwaves. Stations like DZOO-FM, DWLS, etc., are
adopted hourly OPMs effectively after the implementation. Aquino also encouraged the
tourism sector to boost the national economy. Under her six-year term, the Department of
Tourism launched a program called The Philippines: Fiesta Islands of Asia in 1989,
offers tourist visits in the country to show their natural wonders, to protect their indigenous
peoples, to preserve heritage sites and to contribute historical importance. In 1987, then
President Corazon C. Aquino penned Executive Order No. 118 creating the Presidential
Commission on Culture and Arts. Five years later, in 1992, this presidential directive was
enacted into law—Republic Act 7356, creating the National Commission for Culture and the
Arts (NCCA).

On June 12, 1998, the nation celebrated its centennial year of independence from Spain.
The celebrations were held simultaneously nationwide by then President Fidel V. Ramos and
Filipino communities worldwide. A commission was established for the said event, the
National Centennial Commission headed by former Vice President Salvador Laurel presided
all events around the country. One of the major projects of the commission was the Expo
Pilipino, a grand showcase of the Philippines' growth as a nation for the last 100 years, in the
Clark Special Economic Zone (formerly Clark Air Base) in Angeles City, Pampanga.

During his term, President Joseph Estrada ordered to the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) to adopt a Filipino language-based radio format known as masa—named
for his icon term Masa (or Masses).[citation needed] All radio stations adopted
the masa format in 1998.[citation needed] Many stations continued to use the masa format
after President Estrada left the presidency in 2001 because the masa format resonated with
listeners.[54] Some in the radio industry decry the effects masa formatting has had.[55]

On August 14, 2010, President Benigno Aquino III directed the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the NTC to fully implement Executive
Order No. 255, issued on July 25, 1987 by former Philippines President Corazon Aquino,
requiring all radio stations to broadcast a minimum of four original Filipino musical
compositions in every clock hour of programs with a musical format.[56]

On April 13, 2012, The Manila Times, the oldest English language newspaper in the
Philippines, published an editorial titled "Unpatriotic editing and reporting", taking the
Filipino journalistic community to task for their reporting of what it described as
"confrontation between our Philippine Navy and 'law enforcement' ships of the People's
Republic of China" in the Spratly Islands. The editorial opined that Philippine reports should
state that disputed territories are Philippine territory, and characterized those who refer to
disputed territories as "being claimed by the Philippines" as "unpatriotic writers and
editors".[57]

On February 14, 2013, National Book Store, the Philippines' largest bookstore chain, has
withdrawn Chinese-made globes, which reflect China's nine-dotted line encompassing
the South China Sea, from its shelves. Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman Raul
Hernandez said in a statement that, "[National Bookstore] has taken a patriotic position to
proactively support the Philippine government in advancing Philippine foreign policy
objectives." He said the decision to pull out the globes came after a dialogue with the bookstore
management, which claimed they were unaware of the “misinformation” contained in the
educational materials.[58][59]

Colonial Period of Indonesia


The colonial period of Indonesia did not immediately start when the Dutch first arrived in the
archipelago at the end of the 16th century. Instead, it was a slow process of political expansion
that took centuries to reach the territorial boundaries of present-day Indonesia.

During the course of the 18th century the Dutch United East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische
Compagnie, abbreviated VOC) had established itself as the dominating economic and political power on
Java after the crumbling and collapse of the Mataram empire. This Dutch trading company had been a
major power in Asian trade since the early 1600s, but started to develop an interest to interfere in
indigenous politics on the island of Java in the 18th century as that would improve their hold on the local
economy.

However, mismanagement, corruption and fierce competition from the English East India Company resulted in
the slow demise of the VOC towards the end of the 18th century. In 1796 the VOC went bankrupt and was
nationalized by the Dutch state. As a consequence its possessions in the archipelago passed into the hands of
the Dutch crown in 1800. However, when the French occupied Holland between 1806 and 1815 these
possessions were transferred to the British. After Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo it was decided that most parts
of the archipelago would return to the Dutch.

Architects of the Dutch Colonial State in Indonesia


Two names stand out as being architects of the new Dutch colonial state in Indonesia. Firstly, Herman Willem
Daendels, Governor-General from 1808 to 1811 during the French occupation of Holland and, secondly, British
Lieutenant Sir Stamford Raffles, Governor-General from 1811 to 1816 during the British occupation of Java.
Daendels reorganized the central and regional colonial administration by dividing Java into districts (also
known as residencies), each one headed by an European civil servant - called the resident - who was directly
subordinate - and had to report - to the Governor-General in Batavia. These residents were responsible for a
wide range of matters in their residency, varying from legal matters to the organization of agriculture.

Raffles continued the reorganizations of his predecessor (Daendels) by reforming the judicial, police and
administrative system of Java. He introduced the land-tax which meant that Javanese peasants had to pay tax,
approximately the value of two-fifths of their annual harvests, to the authorities. Raffles also had a sincere
interest in the cultures and languages of Java. In 1817 he published his The History of Java, one of the first
academic works on the topic of Java. However, his administrative reorganizations meant an increasing
intervention in Java's society and economy by foreigners, which is reflected by the growing number of middle
ranked European officials working in the residencies. Between 1825 and 1890 this number increased from 73 to
190.
The Dutch system of rule in colonial Java was both direct and dualistic. Alongside the Dutch hierarchy, there
existed an indigenous one which functioned as an intermediary between the Javanese peasants and the
European civil service. The top of this indigenous structure consisted of the Javanese aristocracy, previously
the officials that ran the Mataram administration. Now, however, they had to execute the will of the Dutch
center.

The increasing Dutch dominance over Java did not come without resistance. When the Dutch colonial
authorities decided to build a road on the land of prince Diponegoro (who was appointed as guardian of the
throne of Yogyakarta after the sudden death of his half-brother), he rebelled, supported by a majority of the
Javanese population in Central Java and turned it into a jihad war. This war lasted from 1825 to 1830 and
resulted in the deaths of approximately 215,000 people, mostly on Javanese side. However, when the Java War
was over - and prince Diponegoro captured - the Dutch were more dominant on Java than ever before.

The Cultivation System in Java


Competing British traders, the Napoleonic wars in Europe and the Java War implied a big financial burden on
the Dutch kingdom's budget. It was decided that Java should become a major source of revenue for the Dutch
and therefore Governor-General Van den Bosch ushered in the era of the Cultivation System in 1830. This
system meant a Dutch monopoly on the cultivation of export crops on Java.
Moreover, it were the Dutch who decided what kind of crops (and in what quantity) had to be delivered by the
Javanese peasants. Generally it meant that Javanese peasants had to hand over one-fifth of their harvests to the
Dutch. In return the peasants received an arbitrarily fixed compensation in cash which basically had no relation
to the value of the crop on the world market. The Dutch and Javanese officials received a bonus when their
residency delivered more crops than on previous occasions, therefore stimulating top-down intervention and
oppression. On top of this compulsory cultivation of crops and traditional corvee-labor services, Raffles' land
tax still applied as well. The Cultivation System turned out to be a financial success. Between 1832 and 1852
around 19 percent of total Dutch state income was generated from the Javanese colony. Between 1860 and
1866 this figure reached around 33 percent.
Initially, the Cultivation System was not dominated by the Dutch authorities only. Javanese power holders and
private European as well as Chinese entrepreneurs joined in as well. However, after 1850 - when the
Cultivation System was reorganized - the Dutch colonial state became the dominant player. But these
reorganizations also opened doors for private parties to start exploiting Java. A process of privatization
commenced in which the colonial state gradually transferred export production to Western entrepreneurs.

The Liberal Period of Colonial Indonesia


More and more voices were heard in the Netherlands that rejected the Cultivation System and supported a more
liberal approach for foreign enterprises. This rejection of the Cultivation System was both for humane and for
economic motives. Around 1870 Dutch liberals had won their battle in Dutch parliament and successfully
eliminated some of the characteristic features of the Cultivation System, such as the cultivation percentages and
the compulsory use of land and labour for export crops.
These liberals paved the way for the introduction of a new period in Indonesian history, known as the Liberal
Period (circa 1870 to 1900). This period is marked by a huge influence of private capitalism on colonial policy
in the Dutch Indies. The colonial state now more or less played the role of supervisor in relations between
Western enterprises and the rural Javanese population. But - although liberals claimed that the benefits of
economic growth would trickle down to the local level - Javanese farmers suffering from hunger, famine and
epidemics were just as common as under the Cultivation System.
The 19th century is also known as the century in which the Dutch made substantial geographical expansion in
the archipelago. Driven by the New Imperialism-mentality, European nations were competing for colonies
outside the European continent for both economic motives and status. One important motive for the Dutch to
expand its territory in the archipelago - apart from financial benefit - was to prevent other European countries
from taking parts of this region. The most famous and prolonged battle during this period of Dutch expansion
was the Aceh War that started in 1873 and lasted until 1913, resulting in the deaths of more than 100,000
people. The Dutch would, however, never have full control over Aceh. But the political integration of Java and
the Outer Islands into a single colonial polity had largely been achieved by the start of the 20th century.
The Ethical Policy and Indonesian Nationalism
When the borderlines of the Dutch Indies began to take the shape of present-day Indonesia, Dutch Queen
Wilhelmina made an announcement in her annual speech in 1901 informing that a new policy, the Ethical
Policy, would be launched. The Ethical Policy (acknowledging that the Dutch had a debt of honour towards the
Indonesians) was aimed at raising the living standards of the native population. The means to accomplish this
was direct state intervention in (economic) life, promoted under the slogan ‘irrigation, education and
emigration’. This new approach would, however, not prove to be a significant success in raising the living
standards of Indonesians.
This Dutch Ethical Policy implied one profound and far-reaching side effect. Its educational component
contributed significantly to the awakening of Pan-Indonesian nationalism by providing Indonesians the
intellectual tools to organize and articulate their objections to colonial rule. The Ethical Policy provided a small
Indonesian elite with Western political ideas of freedom and democracy. For the first time the native people of
the Archipelago began to develop a national consciousness as 'Indonesians'.

In 1908 students in Batavia founded the association Budi Utomo, the first native political society. This event is
often regarded as the birth of Indonesian nationalism. It established a political tradition in which cooperation
between the young Indonesian elite and the Dutch colonial authorities was expected to lead to acquiring some
degree of independence.
The next chapter in the development of Indonesian nationalism was the founding of the first mass-based
political party, the Sarekat Islam (Islamic Union) in 1911. Initially, it was formed to support the indigenous
entrepreneurs against the dominating Chinese in the local economy but it expanded its scope and developed a
popular political consciousness with subversive tendencies.
Other important movements that led to the unfolding of indigenous political thinking in the Dutch-Indies were
the Muhammadiyah, an Islamic reformist socio-religious movement founded in 1912 and the Indonesian
Association of Social Democrats, a communist movement founded in 1914 that spread Marxist ideas through
the Dutch Indies. Internal disunity in the latter would later lead to the formation of the Indonesian Communist
Party (PKI) in 1920.
Initially, the Dutch colonial authorities permitted the establishment of indigenous political movements but
when Indonesian ideologies radicalized in the 1920s (as seen in the communist uprisings in West Java and
West Sumatra in 1926 and 1927) the Dutch authorities changed course. A relative tolerant regime was replaced
by a repressive one in which every suspected act of subversive behaviour was suppressed. This repressive
regime in fact only worsened the situation by radicalizing the entire Indonesian nationalist movement. Part of
these nationalists established the Indonesian Nationalist Party (Partai Nasional Indonesia, abbreviated PNI) in
1927 as a reaction to the repressive regime. Its goal was full independence for Indonesia.
Another important occasion for Indonesian nationalism was the declaration of the Youth Pledge in 1928. At
this congress of youth organizations three ideals were proclaimed, to wit one motherland, one nation and one
language. The main aim of this congress was to stimulate the feeling of unity between the young Indonesians.
On this congress the future national anthem (Indonesia Raya) was played and the future national flag
(merah-putih) was shown for the first time. The colonial authorities reacted with another act of suppression.
Young national leaders, such as Soekarno (who would become Indonesia's first president in 1945) and
Mohammad Hatta (Indonesia's first vice president) were arrested and exiled.
Japanese Invasion of the Dutch Indies
The Dutch were powerful enough to curb Indonesian nationalism by arresting its leaders and suppressing the
nationalist organizations but never were they able to eliminate nationalist sentiment. The Indonesians, on the
other hand, did not have the power to compete with the colonial rulers and therefore needed outside help to
eliminate the colonial system.
In March 1942 the Japanese, fueled by their desire for oil, provided such help by occupying the Dutch Indies.
Although initially welcomed as liberators by the Indonesian population, Indonesians would soon experience the
hardship of the Japanese rule: scarcity of food, clothing and medicines as well as forced labour under harsh
conditions. The scarcity of food was mainly caused by administrative incompetence, turning Java into an island
of hunger. Indonesians working as forced labourers (called romusha) were stationed to work on
labour-intensive construction projects on Java.

When the Japanese took over, Dutch officials were thrown in internment camps and were replaced by
Indonesians to administer government tasks. The Japanese educated, trained and armed many young
Indonesians and gave their nationalist leaders a political voice. This enabled the nationalists to prepare for a
future independent Indonesian nation. In the final months before Japan's surrender, effectively ending World
War II, the Japanese gave full support to the Indonesian nationalist movement. Political, economic and social
dismantling of the Dutch colonial state meant that a new era was about to emerge. On 17 August 1945
Soekarno and Hatta proclaimed the independence of Indonesia, eight days after the Nagasaki atomic bombing
and two days after Japan lost the war. Click here to read an overview of Soekarno's Old Order
Different Perceptions of Indonesia's Colonial Period
There basically exist three "histories", or more accurately, three versions of Indonesia's colonial period:
1) Indonesian version
2) Dutch version
3) Academic version
It should be emphasized, however, that within each of these three groups - Indonesians, the Dutch, and
academics (in this case mainly historians), - there exists plenty of variety. But we can discern three broad
versions.
What separates the Indonesian and Dutch versions from the academic version is clear: the Indonesian and
Dutch versions are colored by specific sentiments and/or political interests, while the academic version aims to
deliver an objective and accurate version, not based on sentiments but on evidence (sources). The reader may
now wonder which version he/she read just now? Well, the overview of Indonesia's colonial period that is
presented above is a synopsis of the academic version. However, it is interesting to provide some information
about the Indonesian and Dutch versions. With these versions we mean the general consensus and views that
are shared by the people (this includes the ordinary people but also government officials, and those who wrote
the history books for the younger generations, etc.) in each nation.
Obviously, the Indonesian and Dutch versions have a lot in common. However, due to both sides' involvement
in this colonial history there exist some differences that can be attributed to sentiments and political interests.
Indonesian Perceptions
For example, when you talk to an Indonesian individual about the colonial period (whether the individual is
highly educated or uneducated) he/she will say that Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch for three and a half
centuries. What is wrong with this statement? First of all, it supposes that Indonesia already was a unified
nation in the late 1500s or early 1600s. However, in reality the country we now know as Indonesia was a
patchwork of independent indigenous kingdoms that lacked a feeling of brotherhood or nationalist sentiment or
any other sense of unity. In fact, wars between these kingdoms - either inter or intra island - were the rule rather
than the exception.
Secondly, the whole area we now know as Indonesia was not conquered by the Dutch around the same time
and then possessed for 3.5 centuries. On the contrary, it took centuries of gradual political expansion before the
region was under Dutch control (and in several parts Dutch control was very superficial, such as Aceh). In fact,
only around the 1930s the Dutch more-or-less possessed the whole area that we now know as Indonesia. Some
parts indeed were colonized for 3.5 centuries (for example Batavia/Jakarta and parts of the Moluccas), other
parts were dominated by the Dutch for some two centuries (such as most of Java) but most other parts of this
huge archipelago were gradually conquered over the course of the 19th and early 20th century, and in many
regions natives never saw a Dutch person.
So, why does there exist the view that (the whole of) Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch for three and half
centuries? The answer is politics. As becomes clear from the synopsis above, Indonesian nationalism was
driven by the realization among the young and diverse people of the archipelago (whatever their ethnic, cultural
or religious background was) that they had one common enemy: the Dutch colonial power. Having this enemy
is basically what unified the native people of Indonesia. This also explains why - after the enemy was
completely gone in 1949 - there emerged a prolonged and chaotic period in Indonesian politics and society
between 1949 and 1967. With the enemy gone, all the underlying differences between the people of Indonesia
came to the surface resulting in rebellions, calls for separatism, and impossible decision-making on the political
level. Only when a new authoritarian regime, Suharto's New Order, took control, chaos disappeared (and, again,
at the expense of human rights).
After Independence from the Dutch, the Indonesian government needed to keep the Indonesian nation unified.
One smart strategy was by creating this common 3.5 century colonial history that was shared by all people in
the Indonesian nation. If the Indonesian people would realize that they did not have the same history it would
jeopardize the unity of Indonesia, especially in the fragile 1940s and 1950s.
In recent years, there start to become more and more Indonesians who are aware of this issue and argue that
without the colonial period there would - most likely - not have developed a single Indonesian nation but more
likely there would have been various separate nation states in line with the distribution of the old native
kingdoms and empires in the Archipelago.
Dutch Perceptions
The Dutch also have plenty of reason to portray a colonial history that is different from reality. The Netherlands
of the last couple of decades is a country that emphasizes the importance of human rights and this does not
exactly match its 'rich' colonial history. Therefore, the violent nature of its colonial history is often not
mentioned. Instead, the VOC period forms a source of national pride to the Dutch knowing that - despite being
this tiny European country - it became the world's richest country in the 17th century (Dutch Golden Age), not
only in terms of trade and military but also in terms of art and science.
An interesting example is when former Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende became annoyed during a
discussion with the Dutch House of Representatives in 2006. Responding to the House's pessimistic views of
the Dutch economic future, Balkenende said "let us be optimistic, let us be positive again, that VOC mentality,
looking beyond borders." It is an example of selective memory that signals the sense of pride that stems from
the VOC period. It is fair to mention that this statement of Balkenende met criticism in the Netherlands.
On the other hand, there are plenty of examples that illustrate that the Dutch are in fact aware of the violent
history (including slavery) that were key to turn the Netherlands into one of the world's most advanced nations.
For example, statues in the Netherlands that glorify people from the VOC period and the government-led
colonial period - such as Jan Pieterszoon Coen and J.B. van Heutsz - have either been removed or are criticized
by the local Dutch population.
Another interesting case is the apology that was made by Dutch ambassador to Indonesia Tjeerd de Zwaan in
2013. He apologized for the "excesses committed by Dutch forces" between 1945 and 1949, the first ever
general apology. However, the Dutch government has never apologized for all violent events that occurred
before 1945.
In conclusion, it seems that both Indonesian and Dutch perceptions are slowly moving toward the academic
version because high emotions (whether resentment or pride) gradually wane as time goes by, while Indonesia's
domestic political situation is stable and therefore there is less need to create one common history throughout
the archipelago.
Sources:
• M.C. Ricklefs: A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1200
• H. Dick, e.a.: The Emergence of a National Economy. An Economic History of Indonesia, 1800-2000
• E. Locher-Scholten & P. Rietbergen, e.a.: Hof en handel: Aziatische vorsten en de VOC 1620-1720
• D. Henley e.a.: Environment, Trade and Society in Southeast Asia
• J. Touwen: Extremes in the Archipelago: Trade and Economic Development in the Outer Islands of Indonesia,
1900-1942
• H. Jonge & N. Kaptein e.a.: Transcending Borders: Arabs, Politics, Trade and Islam in Southeast Asia

https://www.indonesia-investments.com/culture/politics/colonial-history/item178

Early Malay nationalism


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Malay nationalism (Malay: Semangat Kebangsaan Melayu Jawi: ‫ ) سمڠت كبڠساءن ماليو‬refers to the nationalism that focused
overwhelmingly on the Malay anticolonial struggle, motivated by the nationalist ideal of creating a Bangsa
Melayu ("Malay nation") with its central objectives were the advancement and protection of what constitutes
the Malayness – religion (Islam), language (Malay), and royalty (Malay rulers). Such pre-occupation is a direct response
to the European colonial presence and the influx of foreign migrant population in Malaya since the mid-nineteenth
century.

Malay nationalism has its roots in the end of the 19th century, but did not exist as a united and organised political
movement. The concept of ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony) was largely irrelevant at the time, as
the Chinese and Indians, who formed almost half of the population, did not see themselves as citizens of Malaya.[1] A
report by the British Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in the early 1930s found that "the number
of non-Malays who have adopted Malaya as their home is only a very small proportion of the whole population". [2]

The rise of Malay nationalism was largely mobilised by three nationalist factions – the radicals distinguishable into the
Malay left and the Islamic group which were both opposed to the conservative elites.[3] The Malay leftists were
represented by Kesatuan Melayu Muda, formed in 1938 by a group of Malay intelligentsia primarily educated
in Sultan Idris Training College, with an ideal of Greater Indonesia. In 1945, they reorganised themselves into a
political party known as Partai Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM). The Islamists were originally represented
by Kaum Muda consisted of Middle Eastern–educated scholars with Pan-Islamic sentiment. The first Islamic political
party was Partai Orang Muslimin Malaya (Hizbul Muslimin) formed in March 1948, later succeeded by Pan-Malayan
Islamic Party in 1951. The third group was the conservatives consisted of the westernised elites who were bureaucrats
and members of royal families that shared a common English education mostly at the exclusive Malay College Kuala
Kangsar. They formed voluntary organisations known as Malay Associations in various parts of the country and their
primary goals were to advance the interests of Malays as well as requesting British protection on Malay positions. In
March 1946, 41 of these Malay associations formed United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), to assert Malay
dominance over Malaya.[3]

The first major show of force by Malay nationalism came in 1946 when British proposed a Malayan Union that would
greatly reduce the powers of Malay rulers and give citizenship to foreign immigrants. Under intense pressure from
the United Malays National Organisation, the British withdrew the proposal, resulting the formation of Persekutuan
Tanah Melayu in 1948.
Early 20th century
Although Malaya was effectively governed by the British, de jure the Malays were sovereign over Malaya. A former
British High Commissioner, Hugh Clifford, urged "everyone in this country [to] be mindful of the fact that this is a
Malay country, and we British came here at the invitation of Their Highnesses the Malay Rulers, and it is our duty to
help the Malays to rule their own country."[4] The British government adopted an open "Pro-Malay" policy so that, in
the words of High Commissioner Sir Laurence Guillemard, the Malays could be equipped "to take their proper place in
the administrative and commercial life of these States."[5]

The local-born non-Malay communities soon began agitating against the government's policies, and began demanding
political representation. In 1936, the Malayan-born Indian community asked the British High Commissioner,
Sir Shenton Thomas, to grant them a share of administrative appointments. Thomas rejected the request, stating, "...I
do not know of any country in which what I might call a foreigner ... has ever been appointed to an administrative
post."[6] Later, some commentators attributed this to ignorance on the British' part of the increasing size of local-born
non-Malays. Although 1.5 million Chinese migrated to Malaya to work as manual labourers – with a million Chinese
workers in Malaya in turn emigrating back to China – between 1911 and 1921, these critics contend that during the
same period, the locally born Chinese community grew from 8% to 17% of the Chinese population domiciled in Malaya.
The British nevertheless appeared to view the entire Chinese community as – according to one academic – a "transient
labour force", with one government official insisting it would be dangerous to consider the Chinese as having "a
tendency to permanent settlement" despite such figures. The locally born Indian community – comprising 20% of the
Indian population, the rest being manual labourers having migrated for similar reasons as the Chinese at around the
same time – was likewise largely ignored.[7]

However, the British at the same time took the stance that the Malays were to be left alone to their traditional peasant
lifestyle as far as possible, involving only the Malay ruling class in government and administrative issues. Despite the
policy of excluding non-Malays from positions of authority, much of the rank and file of the civil service was
non-Malays, many of them Indians who the government had specifically brought in for this purpose.[7] A number of
historians have described the pro-Malay policies of the British as designed merely to preserve the position of the British,
rather than to strengthen that of the Malays; many have characterised the British approach as being one of "divide and
rule," where "the towns were Chinese, with their shopkeepers and traders; the villages were Malay, with their farmers
and fishermen; the plantations were Indian, with their rubber tappers and labourers," keeping "the races at just the
right distance from each other to have the disparate elements of Malaya work in remote harmony".[8][9]

In the 1920s, the local-born Chinese community began pushing for a greater role in Malayan government. However,
they remained in the minority, with much of the Chinese community – which by now made up 39% of the Malayan
population – still comprising transient labourers. Nevertheless, the dialect speaking Chinese – which comprised the bulk
of local-born Chinese – wanted to be given government positions and recognised as Malayans. One Straits Chinese
leader asked, "Who said this is a Malay country? ... When Captain [Francis] Light arrived, did he find Malays, or Malay
villages? Our forefathers came here and worked hard as coolies – weren't ashamed to become coolies – and they didn't
send their money back to China. They married and spent their money here, and in this way the Government was able
to open up the country from jungle to civilisation. We've become inseparable from this country. It's ours, our country..."
Irked Malay intellectuals objected to this reasoning, and proposed an analogy with the Chinese as masons and Malaya
as a house. A paid mason, they argued, was not entitled to a share in the ownership rights to a home he built. As such,
they opposed any attempt to grant the Chinese citizenship or other political rights. [10]

However, not all Malays were natives of Malaya. A number of other distinct ethnic groups related to the Malays, such
as the Javanese and Bugis, migrated to Malaya from elsewhere in the region throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
Most of them were quickly assimilated into the Malay cultural identity.[11] Eventually, the Chinese appeals appeared to
affect the British. In 1927, the Governor of the Straits Settlements which comprised Penang, Malacca and Singapore,
proclaimed that "The Chinese form today a majority of the indigenous inhabitants of British Malaya, and they are
perhaps the most enterprising, energetic, provident and frugal of its sons."[12]

In 1938, the leftist Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) was formed by Ibrahim Yaacob and other activists in Kuala Lumpur,
with its main goal ostensibly being the formation of Greater Indonesia. During this period, Malay nationalism began to
focus on ketuanan Melayu, which in the past had been taken for granted. Some Malays began to worry that the British
policies appeared geared towards the creation of a common Malayan nationality inclusive of the Chinese and Indians.
Ironically, some of them thus sought to preserve the status quo with the British as a bulwark against the non-Malays,
while others began agitating for an independent and sovereign Malay nation, such as Greater Indonesia. [13] There
exists some dispute over which goal KMM actually sought, with some former members alleging that the only interest of
KMM had been preserving the special position of the Malays, whatever the cost, and others claiming that there had
been real plans to overthrow the British. Historians have been unable to verify either claim due to a lack of
documentation from the period.[14]

Shortly before the outbreak of World War II in Asia, the British detained several influential KMM leaders. However,
most of them were freed during World War II, when the Japanese invaded and occupied Malaya. The former KMM
leaders then formed Kesatuan Rakyat Indonesia Semenanjung (KRIS) to carry on KMM's work. However, the planned
Greater Indonesia never materialised due to the sudden Japanese surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. With the return of the British, the KRIS leaders formed the Malay Nationalist Party (MNP; also known as the
Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya or PKMM) to achieve their goals through democratic means. However, the MNP
was soon banned by the government as part of a crack-down on left-wing parties, ending the early phase of Malay
nationalism.[15]

The Malayan Union


After World War II, the British announced the establishment of the Malayan Union, which would have loose
immigration policies, reduce the sovereignty of the Malay rulers both in name and reality, and not recognise Malay
sovereignty over Malaya. It would also establish Malaya as a protectorate of the United Kingdom. A large percentage of
the Chinese and Indians – 83 and 75 percent, respectively – would qualify for citizenship under the jus soli principle
applied by the Union, which would grant citizenship to all locally born residents. With equal rights guaranteed to all,
the Malays feared that what little power they had left would soon be taken away from them. Even their traditional
stronghold, the civil service, would be open to all Malayans.[16][17]

For what many commentators agree appears to be the first time, the Malays became politically conscious, organising
rallies and marches to protest the Malayan Union's formation. At one such gathering, placards were hoisted, declaring
that "Malaya Belongs to the Malays. We do not want the other races to be given the rights and privileges of the
Malays."[18] The Pan-Malayan Malay Congress of Malay leaders sent a telegram to the British government protesting
the Malayan Union's formation, and elaborated on this by asserting that the citizenship provisions constituted a threat
to the future of Malaya, eventually leading to "the wiping from existence of the Malay race along with their land and
Rulers".[19] A group of Malay royalists and civil servants formed the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) to
protest the Malayan Union's formation. Led by Dato' Onn Ja'afar, UMNO organised a campaign and co-ordinated
several previously divided Malay organisations against the Union's creation.[20] Although the Union was established as
planned, the campaign continued; in 1948, the British retired the Malayan Union in favour of the Federation of
Malaya, whose constitution restored sovereignty to the Malay rulers, tightened immigration and citizenship restrictions,
and gave the Malays special privileges.[21] Nevertheless, the avowed goal of the British remained the same as it had
been in 1946: to introduce "a form of common citizenship open to all those, irrespective of race, who regarded Malaya
as their real home and as the object of their loyalty."[22]

A limited form of opposition to ketuanan Melayu and UMNO during this period came from the All-Malaya Council of
Joint Action (AMCJA) which initially opposed the Malayan Union because of its exclusion of Singapore, lack of universal
suffrage, and restricted civil liberties. The AMCJA, which was an amalgamation of several smaller organisations and
trade unions, claimed to be the only organisation sufficiently representative of Malaya to be able to negotiate with the
British, and demanded a place at the bargaining table with the British for negotiations on the Federation's formation.
Later, the MNP (which had not been deregistered yet) and several other Malay organisations left the UMNO fold and
formed the Pusat Tenaga Raayat (PUTERA). Although the MNP had insisted on ketuanan Melayu as a "National
Birthright" of the Malays, PUTERA forged a compromise with the AMCJA to work together towards, among other
things, "Equal political rights for all who regarded Malaya as their real home and as the object of their loyalty." Even so,
not all was smooth sailing; the original name of the AMCJA had used the phrase "All-Malayan", but this was altered
after PUTERA objected, as the Malays perceived the term "Malayan" to specifically exclude the Malays. After the British
refused to appoint a Malayan to head the Consultative Committee which would canvass the views of Malayans on the
existing proposals for the Federation, the PUTERA-AMCJA coalition pulled out of negotiations with the British.
Nevertheless, they continued to influence Malayan politics right until the formation of the Federation in 1948, when
they launched a hartal (boycott) to protest perceived defects in the Federation proposal. The hartal is estimated to
have cost the Malayan economy £4 million. After the Federation was formed over their objections, the coalition
disbanded.[23]
Prior to the formation of the Federation, the non-Malays were generally uninvolved in Malayan politics and
nationalism, which was essentially Malay in nature. During the tenure of the Malayan Union, there was never any
major political backing from either the Chinese or Indians, both of which were more interested in the politics of their
respective homelands.[24] The AMCJA, although mostly non-Malay, did not represent a large section of the non-Malay
communities in Malaya.[25] As a result, some historians have pinpointed the failure of the Malayan Union as the
incident that made Chinese keenly aware of the need for political representation in Malaya, attributing to it the
formation of the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) – a communal political party which desired the Chinese to have
equal political rights as the Malays over Malaya, directly challenging the concept of ketuanan Melayu.[26] Others,
however, argue that the main driving force behind non-Malay involvement in Malayan politics, and their assertion of
certain rights, was the increasing number of local-born non-Malays. The same report from the British Permanent
Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies cited earlier said that "Those who have been born in Malaya themselves, or
whose children have been born there ... state that in a great many cases those concerned have never seen the land of
their origin and they claim that their children and their children's children should have fair treatment."[27] The
inaugural President of the MCA was Tan Cheng Lock, a local-born Peranakan who had led the AMCJA until its
breaking up.

Towards independence
Having achieved their initial goals, UMNO's leaders decided to become more involved in the political process, and to
establish their organisation as a political party to fight for independence. At the same time, the Malayan Communist
Party (MCP) decided to launch an armed insurgency against what they viewed as a puppet state of the British,
culminating in the Malayan Emergency which would last until after independence. The insurgency was marked by a
clear racial divide; the opposition to the insurrection was almost entirely Malay, while those seen fighting in the
communist ranks were nearly always Chinese. This exacerbated racial tensions, leading the British to advise Onn
Ja'afar to work together with other Malayan community leaders for the benefit of Malayan politics. Eventually, after
some informal meetings between Onn, Tan Cheng Lock, and E.E.C. Thuraisingham, the Communities Liaison
Committee (CLC) was established. The CLC became a focal point for the top echelon of Malayan politicians over the
next few years, hammering out proposals and compromises on a number of issues, including citizenship, education,
democracy, and resolving the impasse on ketuanan Melayu. It was eventually decided that a "bargain" would be forged
between the Malays and non-Malays; in return for giving up ketuanan Melayu (referred to as the Malays' special
position), the Malays would receive assistance from the non-Malays in closing the economic gap between the
impoverished and overwhelmingly rural Malays with the substantially better off and urban non-Malays. Thuraisingham
later said, "It is true. I and others believed that the backward Malays should be given a better deal. Malays should be
assisted to attain parity with non-Malays to forge a united Malayan Nation of equals."[28]

Still, problems continued to crop up. When the Malayan government implemented a system of national service,
whereby Malayan youths would be conscripted into the army to stave off communist attacks. Many Chinese refused to
participate, fleeing to Hong Kong or mainland China via Singapore. Only 1,800 Chinese registered for the draft, many
of them English-educated. The Chinese press opposed national service as well, with the Sin Chew Jit Poh arguing that
skilled workers and teachers, as well as first-born sons, be exempted. The Nanyang Siang Pau insisted that the Chinese
be granted citizenship before being called to defend Malaya against the communists, while the China Press stated its
preference for a voluntary army. Tan Cheng Lock also spoke out in defence of the Chinese opposition, saying that the
Chinese traditionally gave their loyalty to their family and locality instead of their nation, with the "Western" concept
of social obligation all but unknown to the vast majority of Chinese. A similar system in Chinese-majority Singapore
was implemented later that decade, with similar results. To the Malays, this indicated that the Chinese had no
particular loyalty towards Malaya and justified ketuanan Melayu, heightening similar perceptions caused by the
apparent racial dichotomy between those in fierce opposition to the communists and those supporting the MCP. [29]

Later, the British government implemented the Briggs Plan, which moved Chinese villagers living near the jungles, who
often voluntarily provided or were coerced into providing assistance and supplies to MCP guerillas, to "New Villages".
These New Villages, which were equipped with amenities such as electricity and piped water, were surrounded with
perimeter fencing and armed guards to prevent attacks from the communist soldiers. It was hoped that by providing
the Chinese with such facilities, they would be converted from "reservoirs of resentment into bastions of loyal Malayan
citizenry". However, critics argue that the homogenous nature of New Villages – with the few multiracial ones
eventually failing or turning into ghettoes – worked against this goal, instead accentuating communalist fervour and
causing racial polarisation, especially in politics, as electoral constituencies would now be delineated more along racial
lines. Previously, the Chinese had been spread out geographically, but the Briggs Plan would now bring together rural
Chinese from all over the country and concentrate them in the New Villages. There was significant resentment towards
the programme both among the Chinese and Malays. The Chinese frequently suffered from collective
punishment, preventive detention and summary deportation aimed at weeding out communist supporters, while the
Malays were incensed at the infrastructure provided for the New Villages as their own settlements remained
undeveloped.[30]

In the early 1950s, Onn Ja'afar begin to agitate in favour of opening UMNO membership to all Malayans, and to
rename it as the United Malayan National Organisation. He was defeated, however, in an internal power struggle, and
resigned in 1951 to found the Independence of Malaya Party (IMP). He was succeeded by Tunku Abdul Rahman (often
known as "the Tunku").

Upon succeeding to the UMNO Presidency, the Tunku insisted that sovereignty over the Malaya be given to the Malays,
and expressed concern over a lack of loyalty to Malaya among non-Malays, demanding that they clarify their
allegiance before they were accorded citizenship. He went on to say that "For those who love and feel they owe
undivided loyalty to this country, we will welcome them as Malayans. They must truly be Malayans, and they will have
the same rights and privileges as the Malays."[31] Not long after, in 1952, however, he appeared to contradict himself,
and insisted that "Malaya is for the Malays and it should not be governed by a mixture of races." Malays, he argued,
would have to safeguard their rights over Malaya, "which is ours, for the benefit of our future generation."[32]

During this period, some Straits Chinese began taking an active interest in local politics, especially in Penang, where
there was an active Chinese secessionist movement. They identified themselves more with the British than the Malays
and were especially angered by references to them as pendatang asing ("aliens"). They avoided both UMNO and the
MCA, believing that while UMNO and the Malay extremists were intent on extending Malay privileges and restricting
Chinese rights, the MCA was too "selfish", and could not be relied on to protect their interests. [33] They had already
raised their ire in the late 1940s, when the government proposed to amend the Banishment Ordinance — which
allowed for the exile of Malayans "implicated in acts of violence"[34] – to permit those born in the Straits
Settlements to be banished to their ancestral homeland. This was a revolting idea for most of the Straits Chinese. They
were also uncomfortable about the merger of the Straits Settlements with Malaya, as they did not feel a sense of
belonging to what they considered a "Malaya for the Malays", where they were not considered bumiputra ("sons of the
soil"). One Straits Chinese leader indignantly declared, "I can claim to be more anak Pulau Pinang [a son of Penang]
than 99 per cent of the Malays living here today."[35] The secessionist movement eventually petered out, however,
because of the government's stout refusal to entertain the idea of Penang seceding from the Federation.[36]

Another problem that the government was forced to confront was increasing tension on the subject of citizenship and
nationality. The provisions of the Federation's citizenship laws insisted that citizenship "was not a nationality, neither
could it develop into a nationality." As a result, critics postulated that non-Malay Malayans could not feel a sense of
allegiance towards Malaya, or take interest in Malayan politics as opposed to those of their respective ancestral
homelands. To counter this, in 1952 the government issued an ordinance that granted citizenship to almost 1.5
million non-Malays, and also prohibited dual citizenship, forcing the non-Malays to choose between their ancestral
homeland and Malaya. After the passing of the ordinance, only 1.3 million Malayan residents out of 5.7 million were
without Malayan citizenship, and the bulk of these (about 0.9 million) had been born outside Malaya. Although praised
by some as a "clear stimulus to the evolution of a Malayan people", others claimed the ordinance had not created a
single Malayan nationality that all could relate to.[37]

As Malaya began moving to self-government, the British initiated the Member System, through which various political
leaders were appointed to posts in charge of certain "portfolios", modelled after the cabinet system. The Member
System was later described as setting a precedent for the multiracial Malayan and Malaysian cabinets
post-independence.[38] At the same time, the British also began laying the framework for a national education
system that would "provide...for the creation of a sense of common citizenship". In 1951, they commissioned
the Barnes Report on the state of Malayan education, which postulated that the British policy of providing only limited
education for the Malays had shackled them to a life of few opportunities, arguing that "Now even if he [the Malay]
wanted education he could no longer afford it." The report recommended the establishment of an "inter-racial primary
school we call the National School" that would provide a platform for "build[ing] up a common Malay nationality". The
report made no provision for non-Malay vernacular schools, stating that its proposal "would be seriously weakened if
any large proportion of the Chinese, Indian and other non-Malay communities to provide their own primary classes
independently of the National School". To reassure the non-Malay populace, the report guaranteed that the National
School would "teach English to all", instead of Malay as feared by many. Nevertheless, the proposal was resoundingly
rejected by the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, who accused it of being "saturated with Malay nationalism" and
bolstering ketuanan Melayu. The British commissioned another report, the Fenn-Wu Report, to provide a Chinese
perspective. The Fenn-Wu Report clashed with the Barnes Report on a number of points, recommending the retention
of Chinese schools and suggesting that "No element of the population can be 'Malayanized' for the simple reason that
there is no 'Malayan' pattern to which to mould it..." The Fenn-Wu Report also proposed an alteration of the Chinese
vernacular syllabus to eliminate "[f]oreign politics" and recommended that texts "suitable for Malayan use should be
produced". The Federal Legislative Council then set up a committee led by Thuraisingham to evaluate the Reports and
make a final recommendation. The eventual proposal provided for the setting up of national schools as based on the
Barnes Report, without any provision for vernacular schools. Although the media of instruction would be Malay and
English, vernacular language classes would be permitted in schools where 15 or more students requested them. The
Chinese community protested the final proposal, but in the end, it was endorsed by the MCA and the system was duly
established as planned with the enactment of the 1952 Education Ordinance.[39]

In 1956, a committee headed by Tun Abdul Razak was set up to re-evaluate the education system. The Razak Report
eventually recommended that vernacular primary schools be permitted to continue, but be required to adhere to a
common syllabus with the national schools. However, there would be no official sanction for vernacular secondary
schools, and only national secondary schools would be allowed. The Chinese community strenuously objected to the
Razak Report's recommendations as well, launching an organised campaign against it. When the MCA refused to voice
any dissent towards the proposal, it lost the Ipoh-Menglembu by-election held in Perak the following year. Ipoh, a
largely Chinese city, became an opposition stronghold from then on, due to Chinese antipathy towards the
MCA.[40] Nevertheless, the Razak Report's recommendations were largely successful, and many of them remain in
place today, as of 2006.

Possible causes
According to many historians, the root cause of this strife between the ethnic communities and Malay nationalist
sentiments like ketuanan Melayu was the lack of assimilation or amalgamation between the Malays and non-Malays.
Because most of the migrants came as "guest workers" of the British, they felt little need to integrate into Malay society.
(The Straits Chinese, most of whom were rich merchants instead of manual labourers, were an exception and managed
to assimilate reasonably well, with many of them habitually speaking Malay at home, dressing in the Malay style, and
preferring Malay cuisine.) Few bothered to even learn the Malay language; the census taken at independence showed
that only 3% of Chinese aged ten and over, and 5% of Indians in the same age group, were literate in Malay. The
comparable figure for the Malays stood at 46%.[41] The British educational policies, which segregated the different
ethnicities— providing minimal public education for the Malays, and leaving the non-Malays to their own devices – did
little to help matters. The Malays, who were predominantly rural-dwellers, were not encouraged to socialise with the
non-Malays, most of whom resided in towns.[42] The economic impoverishment of the Malays, which set them apart
from the better-off Chinese, also helped fan racial sentiments.

This failure to assimilate or amalgamate has in turn been blamed on the British. George Maxwell, a high ranking
colonial civil servant, credited the Malay aristocracy for its acceptance of non-Malay participation in public life, and
attributed political discrimination to British colonial policy:

With thirty-five years service in Malaya, and with intimate friendship with Rulers over two
generations, I can say that I never heard one of them say anything that would tend to support
[the exclusion of non-Malays from administrative appointments]. From the very earliest days of
British protection, the Rulers have welcomed the leaders of the Chinese communities as
members of their State Councils. Other [non-Malays] are now members of the State Councils.
The policy of keeping [non-Malays] out of the administration owes its inception to British
officials, and not to the Rulers.[43]
On the basis of these policies, historians have argued that "Given the hostility toward Chinese expressed by many
colonial officials and the lack of physical and social integration, it is not surprising that most Malays formed the opinion
that Chinese were only transients in Malaya with no real attachments to the country."[43]

Another contributing factor to ketuanan Melayu, according to historians, was the Japanese occupation during World
War II. One states that the war "awakened a keen political awareness among Malayan people by intensifying
communalism and racial hatred." This was widely attributed to the Japanese policies which "politicised the Malay
peasantry" and intentionally fanned the flames of Malay nationalism. Racial tension was also increased by the Japanese
practice of using Malay paramilitary units to fight Chinese resistance groups. Two Malay historians wrote that "The
Japanese hostile acts against the Chinese and their apparently more favourable treatments of the Malays helped to
make the Chinese community feel its separate identity more acutely ... it was also the beginning of racial tension
between the Malays and Chinese."[44] A foreign commentator agreed, stating that "During the occupation period ...
Malay national sentiment had become a reality; it was strongly anti-Chinese, and its rallying cry [was] 'Malaya for the
Malays'..."[45]

Potrebbero piacerti anche