Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:50:47.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Structure of the State of Kedah 1879–1905

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Sharom Ahmat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The structure and organization of the Kedah political system, like those of the other patriachal Malay states in the Peninsula, was based essentially on that of the Malacca Sultanate. Under this system, the apex and centre of the organisation was the Sultan, whose political authority was strengthened by the belief that he was endowed with the magical attributes of a “divine king”. This is evident in his title, Yang di-Pertuan (He who is made Lord); and is also manifested in the elaborate court ceremonials and rituals; the clothing, weapons, domestic adornments and a special vocabulary reserved exclusively for royalty. The political functions of the Sultan were very comprehensive covering the fields of internal administration, the defence of the country, and matters relating to external affairs.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , September 1970 , pp. 115 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It is generally believed that the first settlers at Kedah came from Malacca and consequently the laws, port regulations, court ceremonials were adopted from the Undang-undang Melayu.

See Anderson, J.Political and Commercial Considerations Relative to the Malayan Peninsular and British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (Penang 1824) p. 152.Google Scholar

Another evidence of the Malacca influence on the Kedah political system was revealed when Newbold attempted to obtain a copy of the Kedah Code from Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halimshah, when he was in exile in Penang. Newbold was informed that all the Sultan's manuscripts were destroyed by the Siamese during their attack on Kedah in 1821. The Sultan, however, explained that the most important regulations in Kedah was in no way different from those laid down in the Malacca Code.

See Newbold, T.J., Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca (London 1839), Vol. II, p. 224.Google Scholar

2 According to the Qanun Law of Dato Kota Star, there were four immutable rules for the ruler, namely, to pardon the sins of their slaves, to be generous, to inquire into offences and to carry out the law strictly. In addition to this, there were also four attributes of a ruler; courtesy of manners, to issue orders without revoking them, to do good works and to suppress evil works.

Winstedt, R.O., Kedah Laws Journal of the Malayan Branch. Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 2, 1928, p. 10.Google Scholar

3 For detailed discussions of the attributes of a Malay Sultan, see Winstedt, R.O.The Malays. A Cultural History (London 1961) pp. 63–91Google Scholar; Skeat, W.W.Malay Magic (New York 1967, reprint) pp. 24–46.Google Scholar

4 The composition of this group was wide but they came mainly from men of royal descent who did not qualify for royal offices, aristocrats of high status, and sometimes persons outside the ruling class who were favoured by the Sultan.

5 For the list of Kedah Chiefs, see Appendix.

6 Winstedt, , The Malays. A Cultural History (London 1950) p. 75.Google Scholar

7 During the time of the Malacca Sultanate, the Bendahara was in fact the king-maker for it was also his duty to provide the ruler with a wife from his family as the royal consort.

8 The post of Shahbandar was a very important one in the maritime Malay states. Before the establishment of Penang, the Shahbandar was undoubtedly one of the most important offices in Kedah. This is clearly evidenced in the very detailed account of his duties as laid down is the Kedah Port Laws of 1650.

9 During the reign of Sultan Mohamed Jiwa Mukarram Shah (1710–60) there were in existence a larger number of ministers although the functions of all of them are not clear. These included the Bendahara, Paduka Maha Menteri, Paduka Raja Bakal Bendahara, Paduka Seri Raja, Tengku Temenggong, Paduka Seri Dewa, Tengku Maharaja Lela and Seri Paduka Menteri. According to Newbold, Kedah prior to 1821 was ruled by a Sultan who was assisted by a Council of four principal officers of state. They were the Bendahara, Laksmana, Maharaja Lela and Temenggong. These four were in turn assisted by eight dato-dato (chieftans) whose duty was to implement the laws and decress promulgated by the Big Four. See Newbold, op. cit., vol. II, p. 19.

10 The practice of the Sultan relying on informal advisers was a common feature of all Malay governments, although the composition of this group varied from state to state.

See Gullick, J.M., Indigenous Political Systems of Western Malaya (London 1965), pp. 51–52.Google Scholar

11 Gullick. op. cit., pp. 44–64.

12 The Malacca Code, however, defines the ruler as “a personage over whose actions none have control. The Raja is not subject to those laws that came under the denomination of Adat,”

13 Gullick, op. cit., pp. 97–8.

14 SC/5 (Sultan's Letter Book Vol. 5) Sultan to Siamese Consul in Penang 27 Rabial Awal 1305.

15 SC/6 Sultan to Tengku Mohamed Saad 9 Ramathan 1306.

16 This system of depending on the Sultan for an income was yet another factor which obviously kept the district chiefs subordinate to the ruler. In addition certain chiefs became even more dependent on the Sultan as a result of getting into debt. For instance Tengku Mohamed Saad owed a Penang chetty $6000 and as he was unable to meet this obligation he had to request the Sultan to arrange for its payment.

17 SC/3 Sultan to Lim Lan Jak 31 Rabial Awal 1309.

18 According to Newbold, Kedah during his time was divided into 128 mukims, each with a mosque and at least 44 families.

See Newbold, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 20.

19 A mukim is made up of a number of kampong or villages and these have each a Ketua Kampong whose main duty was to assist the Penghulu in the day to day affairs of the village.

20 Every mukim is served by a mosque which in many ways is the focus of Malay life. Mosque officials because of their supposed knowledge of religion are highly respected and sometimes revered by the villagers. Hence, the importance of the Imam (Vicar) who is responsible for the conduct of religious observances in the mukim. To a much lesser extent, the Bilal (Prayer Leader) was also significant, again because of superior knowledge of religion when compared to the average villager.

21 Winstedt, Kedah Laws op. cit, p. 8.

22 SC/1 Sultan to Resident Councillor, Penang 21 Muharram 1305, 30 Muharram 1305.

23 SC/1 Sultan to Resident Councillor, Penang 24 Rabial Awal 1305.

24 SC 6 Raja Muda to Tengku Mohamed Yaacob 19 Rabial Akhir 1314.

25 Swettenham F.A. British Malaya (London 1948) p. 141.

26 Swettenham, Annual Report Perak, 1890. Quoted in Gullick, op. cit., p. 30.

21 Swettenham CO273, 16 October, 1875. Quoted in Gullick, op. cit., p. 30.

22 SC/6 Raja Muda to Tengku Mohamed Yaacob 2 Jamadil Akhir 1314.

29 CO 273/303 Anderson to C.O. 30 November, 1904.

30 Cowan, C.D., Nineteenth Century Malaya: The Origin of British Political Control (London 1962) pp. 26, 35–36Google Scholar.

31 Swettenham, op. cit., p. 311.

32 CO273/93 Hugh Low to C.O. 28 May 1878.

33 The succession line in Perak provided that when the Sultan died, he would be succeeded by the Raja Muda. In this event the Bendahara was promoted to Raja Muda and the vacant post of Bendahara would be filled by the late Sultan's son.

34 The succession system of Kedah was for the eldest son to succeed the father; and the second brother would be appointed Raja Muda.

35 CO273/100 Chao Phraya Suriwongse Phra Kalahome to Newman, 12 December 1879.

36 See Gullick, op. cit., Chapter V.

37 In this respect, Pahang was fairly similar to Kedah. Because of the absence of rich tin deposits, the greater part of the revenues of the state were derived from duties on imports and exports which had to pass through the royal capital. Thus, although the total revenue of Pahang was certainly smaller than that of Perak or Selangor, the Sultan's share was much bigger and this enabled him to maintain his paramount political power.

38 Gullick, op. cit., p. 26.

39 In Perak, besides local born Malays and Minangkabau immigrants who by the 19th century had been assimilated into the society, there were Bugis, Korinchi, Rawa, Mandiling and Batak. In Selangor, they were mainly a mixture of Batak, Rawa and Mandiling. And this was complicated by the fact that the Royal House of Selangor was Bugis in origin, for this created hostility between them and the immigrant groups from Sumatra.

40 The 1891 census figures for Perak, Selangor and Negeri Sembilan shows the very high percentage of Chinese population in three states.

Gullick. op. cit., p. 23.

41 Mahmud, Zaharah bt. Hj., Change in a Malay Sultanate: An Historical Geography of Kedah before 1939 (Unpublished M.A. Thesis) University of Malaya, 1966.Google Scholar

42 Anderson, op. cit., p. 20.

43 Kynnersley C.W.S. Notes on a Tour through the Siamese States on the West Coast of the Malaya Peninsula, 1900 J.S.B.R.A.S., No. 36, 1901, pp. 50, 66.

44 CO273/311 Memo, on Kedah by W.D. Barnes 21 January 1905.

45 CO273/136 Swettenham to Colonial Secretary, Singapore 22 October 1885.

46 CO273/136 Acting Governor, Singapore to C.O. 29 October, 1885.

47 CO273/162 Report on Swetlenham's visit to Kedah 23 November 1889.

48 CO273/333 Frost to Paget 7 June 1907.

49 Quoted in Numnonda, T. The Anglo-Siamese Negotiations, 1900–1909 (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis) London University, 1966.Google Scholar

50 The primary reason for Siam's decision to stay out of Kedah's affairs was because she was afraid that the British would be antagonized if she did so. The Ministry of the Interior was aware of the importance to please Britain as she depended on her to maintain Siam's independence and territorial integrity. Prince Damrong saw the need to “cultivate and oblige Great Britain, so that she might help to protect (Siam) against France, and must carefully avoid any incident which might provoke her ability.”

Bunnag, T.The Provincial Administration of Siam from 1892–1915: A Study of the Creation, the Achievements and the Implication for Modern Siam, of the Ministry of Interior under Prince Damrong Rachanuphap. (D. Phil. Oxford 1968). pp. 245–46.Google Scholar

51 In the case of Kelantan Siamese reaction was seen in 1879 when the King sent the Governor of Trang to restore peace in the state and to appoint the new Sultan. Again in 1890, Bangkok sent a Commissioner to the state to maintain peace and to uphold the Sultan's authority.

52 CO273/162 Report of Swettenham's Visit to Kedah 23 November 1889.

53 CO273/114 Braddell to Swettenham 12 March 1882.

54 CO273/133 Smith to C.O. 5 January 1885.

55 Swettenham, op. cit., p. 311.

56 CO273/168 Report of Sir F. Dickson's Visit to Kedah. 1890.