For many of the Malays, they were willing to cooperate with the British due to the British’s “protection” of the Malays. Many of the British policies regarded the Malays as the “natives of the land” and thus gave them many privileges over the Chinese and Indians. This appeared to appeal to most of the Malays. Moreover, young Malay aristocrats also received special education and training reserved specially for them, and were employed in the colonial bureaucracy, involved mainly in agricultural matters relating to their own community. This made the Malays feel secured and lose interest of fighting for independence in a radical way. Malay nationalism was largely moderate and sought constitutional means in achieving their aims; they lacked a strong united political organization. The main concerns of Malay nationalism were Malay socio-economic backwardness and religious matters. The Kesatuan Melayu Singapura (SMU) was the moderate nationalistic party of Malaya, whereby its members were aristocracies and high-ranked civil servants who rely on peaceful means instead of violence. The radicals in Malaya formed the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (Union of Malay Youths) and advocated the use of violent boycotts or protests was not surprisingly suppressed by the British. This showed that there’s little ground for the radical nationalists in Malaya.
As for the Chinese in Malaya, the majority of the Chinese are immigrants who were not exactly very interested in Malaya’s politics as their loyalties still lay with their motherland China. The Straits Chinese British Association formed by the local Chinese was pro-British and adopted moderate means in achieving interests for the Chinese.
Lastly, the Indians in Malaya were also not very politically active. The Indian Associations were non-political and tended to focus more on recreational and cultural activities. All in all, the nationalistic movements in Malaya was mostly peaceful and the people were not interested in politics thus the moderate reformist stood the best chance in achieving independence by cooperating with the British.
However on the other hand. Countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Burma were very active and violent in trying to achieve their independence.
Since the beginning of Burma’s nationalism back in 1886, much of Burma had succumbed to rebellion and British military posts and convoys were frequently attacked. This marked the start of the radical nationalistic movements in Burma and perhaps, foreshadowed its success in the later years.
The moderate reformists in Burma were quite successful in the earlier phase of the nationalism. They formed the Young Men’s Buddhist Association (YMBA) which consisted western educated barristers and intellectuals. These people were elitists and questioned the British rule in a minor and non-threatening way. They managed to get Home Rule and achieve gradual independence. However, they were unpopular among the people and thus had no mass support. This formed the biggest hindrance of Burma’s moderate reformists’ success in achieving independence.
On the contrary, the radical parties such as the Pongyis led by Buddhist monks in the earlier period and the Thakins led by university students and Aung San during the later period; attracted mass support and were thus, able to move further towards independence. In Burma, many of a time, the extremists and radical reformists were more successful compared to the moderates, in events such as the Dyarchy reform, the radicals managed to reduce the voter turn out of the dyarchy election to no more than 6.9% of the population which caused the election led by the moderates to fail. Another example was The University of Rangoon Strike in 1936. It was significant in leading to the emergence of the Thakins as a revolutionary force in Burmese nationalism.
In conclusion, the nationalistic movements in Burma were largely violent struggles and the radical parties such as the Pongyis and the Thakins won much support from the people and eventually turned out victorious against the British and moderate reformists. Thus in the case of Burma, it was the radical reformists who stood the best chance in accomplishing independence over the moderates.
Furthermore, the Indonesians also endured a more turbulent road towards independence. The early Indonesian nationalism was shaped by a strong sense of self-discovery and transition from the old to new. The nationalist movements in Indonesia were moderate in the beginning led by the Sarekat Islam (SI) but they gradually turned radical. The very 1st radical party formed in Indonesia was the Indische Sciaal Demokratische Vereenigning (ISDV), a Marxist group. Another group was the Nationale Indische Parti which demanded racial equality, socio-economic justice and ultimate independence. However, the Dutch cracked down on the radicals brutally; they were not able to tolerate any radical nationalistic movements. The suppression of the radical nationalist movements by the Dutch cast a heavy mood of resentment among the Indonesians and united the people against the Dutch colonialist rule; the people turned their support on the radical groups.
Therefore, the radical groups in Indonesia gained much support. The emergence of the later radical parties such as the Parti Komunis Indonesia (PKI) and the party formed by the students called the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI) led by Sukarno are more significant in helping Indonesia to realise its independence. The PNI led to the acceptance of a number of key symbols in the late 1920s-a red-white national flag, a national anthem (“Indonesia Raya”) and the use of a common language (Bahasa Indonesia) as well as new names for the East Indies and Batavia-Indonesia and Jakarta respectively. This was a momentous step towards gaining independence for Indonesia as it united the people.
In a nutshell, Indonesia’s nationalistic movements circulated around radical movements and thus were mostly dominated by the radical reformists. Therefore, the radical reformists stood the best chance of political success in Indonesia.
Lastly, in Vietnam, where the French held firmly in their hands, nationalist movements were also inclined towards radicalism. First and foremost, the Can Vuong-“Aid the King” movement marked the starting of the Vietnamese nationalism. Like the nationalist movements in other countries, the events happened in Vietnam were also moderate in the beginning. However, due to the hostility of the French who were against any kind of political movement, even the moderate ones, and did not regard the moderate leader Trinh seriously. This disappointed many moderates and thus, planted the seed of radicalism.
During the period after 1911, nationalism in Vietnam began to move towards the doctrine of Marxism which appeared appealing to the anti-colonialists. It offered an explanation of that had befallen their country and at the same time, the limited political reforms of the French regime in the 1920s disappointed many moderates causing them to turn to more radical ideologies. Therefore, in the late 1920s, the Vet Nam Quoc Dan Dang (VNQDD) was formed. It advocated violent agitation to overthrow the colonial regime though it was short-lived. With the failure of the VNQDD and the moderates, the communists were given a chance to rise above the ground. In the late 1920s, Ho Chi Minh set up the Indochina communist party (ICP). The Great Depression allowed the communists to exploit the people’s grievances politically. It adopted the strategy of focusing on the rural line of revolution which was similar to what happened in China where the communists tried to attract the support of the peasants, both parties, be it in Vietnam or China, emerged victorious in the end.
In a nutshell, it can be concluded that although in the Philippines, the moderate politicians obtained a pledge of independence from the Americans. It does not mean that, in Southeast Asia, moderate-reformist nationalists stood the best chance of political success as seen from the examples of Indonesia, Vietnam and Burma. However, it can be deduced that the different approaches adopted by the different nationalist groups in varied countries were determined by the degree in which their colonialists tried to suppress them. In the case of Philippines, the Americans had promised of their independence before hand and helped to develop the country, thus the hatred had no ground to build on which in turn, led to the more moderate approach of the Philippines nationalists. However, in the case of Indonesia, the Dutch colonialists were unwilling to give up Indonesia and determined to suppress the radical movements; this boosted the nationalist feelings among the local people and thus accelerated the radical movements in Indonesia. And as for Vietnam, the French were even stricter on the issue of nationalistic movements and they suppressed all sorts of nationalist movements, including the moderate ones. This inevitably helped to increase the resentment among the people and thus, gave chance to the radical groups to gain popularity and eventually, emerge victorious against the colonialists. Therefore, the nature of the nationalist movements in Southeast Asian countries were decided by their colonialist’s attitude and tolerance towards nationalism.
Wang Mo
06A01