Sir Frank Swettenham and the Federation of the Malay States

Abstract

Modern Malaysian constitutional history can largely be analysed in terms of the fortunes of three federations: the Federated Malay States (1896), the Federation of Malaya (1948) and the Federation of Malaysia (1963). The last two are recent enough to fall within the domain of contemporary history. Still, it is possible to suggest that they share at least two characteristics with the first. To begin with, each assumed a highly centralized form of administration at the same federal capital of Kuala Lumpur. Protests over such centralizing tendencies led in the original case to the ‘decentralization movement’ fromc. 1920 toc. 1940, and in the third instance to Singapore's separation from the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965. Secondly, all three federations witnessed controversies before their final inauguration, and political conflicts thereafter. The F.M.S. was born only after two Colonial Governors had reported in favour of the proposal, and discontent among the Malay rulers was partly responsible for the decentralization movement just mentioned. The Federation of 1948 was partly a British attempt to arrive at amodus vivendiwith the Malay nationalists after the post-war Malayan Union scheme proved abortive, and it was attended by a Communist revolt and growing nationalist demands for self-government. The Malaysian Federation was the product of a ‘Battle for Merger’ (to use Mr Lee Kuan Yew's phrase), and created or exacerbated internal social and political tensions in addition to arousing Indonesian hostility.

Swettenham and British Residential Rule in West Malaya

“…49 His previous experiences had taught him the limits of Malay tolerance of direct British control, and also those of Whitehall's tolerance of Residential over-rule. 51 Through his cordial relations with the Malay rulers, Swettenham was able to persuade them that these constitutional arrangements and rearrangements were to their advantage as well. His personal ambition and political astuteness, combined with the desire for administrative autonomy, motivated his continued advocacy of the protectorate system, which in practice meant the Resident's nearly autocratic control over Anglo-Malay government.…”