TRADE AND SOCIETY IN THE STRAITS OF MELAKA
DUTCH MELAKA AND ENGLISH PENANG, 1780–1830
Nordin Hussin
Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Abbreviations
Currencies, Weights and Measurements
Introduction
1.The Straits of Melaka and the Trading World
2.The Geography and Trade of Melaka, 1780–1830
3.The Geography and Trade of Penang, 1786–1830
4.Trade in the Straits: Melaka and Penang, 1780–1830
5.Urban Traditions, Geography and Morphology
6.Population Growth in Melaka and Penang, 1780–1830
7.Dutch Urban Administration in Melaka
8.British Urban Administration in Penang
9.Melaka Society, 1780–1830
10.Penang: a Port-town of Migrants, 1786–1830
11.Conclusion … 320 Bibliograph
Index
Introduction
IN RECENT YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A GROWING INTEREST in studies of colonial cities and towns in Asia; this interest has endeavoured to describe more of the life and society in port-towns. Some of the recent studies shedding new light on colonial cities and towns in Southeast Asia include the works of Heather Sutherland, Gerrit Knaap and Remco Raben. The increasing re- cognition given by scholars that studies of society should not be confined to palace or state politics and the elite, but must extend to the common people, has made research on towns and ports a flourishing enterprise. This is because it is in cities, towns, and ports that the everyday life of the people and their activities can be examined in detail.
This growth of interest in the development of urban centres in Asia has also led to works on the theoretical aspects of colonial cities and towns, such as those produced by Ronald J. Horvath, David Simon, M.E.P. Bellam, Anthony D. King and Luc Nagtegaal. These have opened new dimensions of knowledge about colonial administration, everyday life and the socio- economic and political aspects of colonial towns and cities. Geographers such as Rhoads Murphy and Horvath paved the way to studies of colonial port- towns by historians who, in the 1970s, began to show increasing interest in the development of urban centres in Asia. Many historians writing on colonial port-towns have derived their initial inspiration from Rhoads Murphy, whose article ‘Traditionalism and Colonialism: Changing Urban Roles in Asia’ was published in 1969. His work was carried on by S.J. Lewandowski who, in 1975, published her research on the colonial city of Madras. Interest in the subject was further advanced by seminars and conferences, such as the gathering of historians in Santa Cruz to discuss the rise and growth of colonial port-cities in Asia and the multi-disciplinary conference in Perth in 1989, which reviewed the concept of port cities.
Horvath’s work on colonial cities was a response to G. Sjoberg’s book, The Preindustrial City in which the idea was advanced that pre-industrial cities everywhere displayed similar social and ecological structures. It was this generalization that Horvath took issue with, observing that Sjoberg’s theory did not match the pattern of urbanization in Third World countries. In focusing on colonial port-cities and identifying characteristics that were unique to them, Horvath, in fact, had taken the argument a step further. He had put forward the concept that European-ruled cities in Asia, which first came into existence in the sixteenth century, were different from other types or categories of cities. His idea found support among some scholars of Asia who subscribed to the view that, indeed, colonial port-cities had distinctive features that distinguished them from native or indigenous cities.
Writing in 1969, Horvath described a colonial city as a heterogeneous but distinct urban type distinguishable from other types of urban centres found in Asia. He identified its distinctive features in terms of the diversity of people who lived in the town, their different racial, cultural, social and religious backgrounds, all of which created a plural society. Further, the social structure of a colonial city was unique in that the ruling elites were usually European settlers and the role of natives or Asians elites, even if they were employed in the administration, was minimal and merely designed to pacify their own people. In 1993, Luc Nagtegaal, in putting together the distinguishing elements of colonial port-towns that have been identified by other scholars, listed such features as European imposed urban concepts, a European fortress or castle as the focal point or centre of the town, most inhabitants were migrants, a large part of the population were slaves until the middle of the eighteenth century and the cities were poorly integrated into the hinterland.
The view that colonial port-towns can and should stand as a separate urban type, however, has not gone unchallenged. Some scholars have rejected the colonial city typology as misleading, arguing that there was no funda- mental difference between a colonial port–town and any native port-city in Asia. Others, while not rejecting the terminology, have expressed the view that it is flawed and that some of the dominant features have been exagger- ated or overstated. A third view comes from Kidwai who argues that just because some do not agree with the term ‘colonial’ being used, this does not mean that it should be thrown out. In his opinion, many features of this type of city that were not found in a native setting, such as the role of the Europeans in the port-towns or cities, the role of the colonial port-city in the process of integration and interaction, the relationship between the colonial city and its hinterlands, the role of trade and commerce, the large and diverse populations comprising a substantial proportion of migrants who created a cosmopolitan world and the various ethnic groups who live in the town. Further, one should not only look at the activities of the Europeans but also at their dominance in certain important sectors such as shipping, the con- trol of political institutions, the control of market information from abroad and the control of funds to indigenous entrepreneurs.
Nagtegaal, in the same article mentioned above, gave a critical review of the concepts that have been put forward by historians in relation to urban development in Southeast Asia in general and in Indonesia in particular. He sees the concept of ‘colonial city’ as flawed for two main reasons, namely, that it does not fit the available historical data and that it is a fixed concept that does not provide room for change. His work therefore reflects the con- tinuing interest in the study of colonial port-towns and the ongoing debate regarding the theoretical aspects of such investigations. More importantly it highlights the existence of a knowledge gap between theory and historical reality in this field.
In getting to the crux of the problem of matching the theory with the historical data, Nagtegaal observes that scholars have failed to explain the differences between colonial cities and those not ruled by European powers.
According to him most writings on colonial port cities have tended to be merely self-affirmative, with no attempt made to compare colonial cities with other types of cities in order to see if in fact those so-called defining features were really unique to the former. He points out that many European aspects of the colonial city which have been cited as unique have in fact been exaggerated. For example, the claim that European urban concepts had been imposed on the colonial city does not fit the facts as the evidence shows that only the European part looked Western and that the rest, which constituted the largest section of the city, looked more Asian then European. Morpho- logically, Nagtegaal argues that the colonial city in Southeast Asia was not much different from any other native town and port. Even the physical division of the colonial city into castle, town and kampong was not unique, as that also resembled the situation in other native Southeast Asian cities. Nagtegaal further pointed out that even Batavia, which was built by the Dutch, began to resemble a traditional Javanese city as time went by. The only significant difference was that the Europeans were the colonists and that although they were in the minority, they held all the power and control of the town. In this respect he sees the colonial city as an externally induced settlement and not one that had organically developed within the society itself.
In light of the ongoing debate and the assertion, such as that seen in Nagtegaal’s article, that there is a knowledge gap between theory and histor- ical evidence, the need to conduct more empirical studies of colonial port- cities seems evident. The study undertaken here is one such attempt and it is hoped that an examination of Melaka and Penang between 1780 and 1830 will help to provide additional information and shed light on the nature of the societies in these two colonial port-towns. This would then help to ascertain to what extent the two port-towns fitted into the theoretical frame- work that has been presented by the scholars and to establish if such a framework is meaningful in explaining the situation in Melaka and Penang. The study will return to the idea of “colonial port-town” as a category at the end of the book. The term “colonial port-town” used in the course of the text is intended to be descriptive rather than endorsing the idea of a specific type.
This book will attempt a comparative study of Melaka and Penang in the context of overall trends: policy, geographical position, nature and direction of trade; also morphology and society and how these factors were influ- enced by trade and policies. An examination of this sort will require a look at all aspects of the development of Melaka and Penang. Thus trade, admin- istration and policies, physical characteristics of the settlements and nature of the societies will be examined and the interplay of some or all of these factors will be shown. A comparative study of Melaka and Penang between 1780 and 1830 has to take into consideration as starting points, firstly, the fact that Melaka had a long history as an entrepot, has seen indigenous rule before it was colonized and been for a long time under the Dutch, while Penang was a newly opened English port; and, secondly, that both were run in the interests of rival trading companies. Conclusions will then be sought regarding the position of the ports in the region: nature and direction of the trade of both port-towns; the physical nature of the towns and type of societies that were fostered by the trade that was conducted and the policies pursued.
In the period under study, Melaka was under the Dutch until 1794, ruled by the English between 1794 and 1818 and returned to the Dutch in 1818. In 1824 the demarcation of spheres of influence agreed upon by the Dutch and the English finally saw Melaka transferred over to the latter, remaining under English rule until 1957, when Malaya (later Malaysia) attained its independence. Penang was opened by the English and remained English throughout the period under study. There was a difference in the attitude and approach to trade between the Dutch and the English. The Dutch East India Company had not only marginalized Melaka but also enforced the retention of the monopolistic trade policy that was first introduced by the Portuguese in Melaka. On the other hand, the English had introduced free trade in Penang. How these contrasting policies impacted on the role and development of the ports will be pertinent. The study will also determine if the approach of the Dutch to administration differed to that of the English and show how such differences, if they existed, influenced the development of the physical and social environments of the port-towns. The main emphasis of the book will be on establishing the nature of trade, port and society in Melaka and Penang and to compare and contrast the development of these aspects of the two ports.
The above findings will then be used to relate the two port-towns to developments in Southeast Asia in attempting to provide a ‘big picture’ look at Melaka and Penang. At this level, conclusions will be drawn regarding two aspects. The first will try to see where and how Melaka and Penang fit in the urban traditions of Southeast Asia. The second will try to see the significance of the fact that the period under study coincided with the shift from the height of the ‘Age of commerce’ in Southeast Asia towards the period of heightened imperialist activities which occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century, as well as the ‘Chinese century’. During this transition period there was an expansion of English commercial networks in Southeast Asia and China. Furthermore, the expansion of the China trade, led by their forward thrust, had seen an increase in Chinese migrations to and activities in Southeast Asia. Both these developments were crucial to the eighteenth century economic development of Southeast Asia.
As trade was the raison d’être for the presence of the Dutch in Melaka and the English in Penang, it is assumed that it was central to the develop- ment of the two port-towns. The Straits of Melaka was situated along the important trade route between India and China and was also well placed to command the trade of the Malay-Indonesian archipelago and the regions of the Southeast Asian mainland facing the Bay of Bengal. Both these port- towns were therefore strategically positioned within the context of the trad- ing activities of the period and control of these ports provided opportunities to exploit the lucrative trade that passed through the Straits. Moreover traders travelling between India and China had to take refuge in the Straits from the changing monsoon winds and to refit their ships. Yet one was geographically better situated than the other. Melaka, located closer to the southern entrance to the Straits of Melaka, was better placed to command the trade of the archipelago, a factor that ensured it an enduring role and good reputation as an entrepot for more than four centuries. Penang, geographically positioned at the northern end of the Straits and at the northeast corner of the archipelago, was not as strategically located as Melaka. It was also a newly opened port. To what extent these factors affected the development and character of the trade and each of the port- towns, are questions that have to be answered. The interplay of these factors and the players and commodities involved also have to be examined to show the direction and nature of the trade of the two port-towns.
Under the theme of the development of trade, trading routes, networks and linkages of the two ports will be examined. The major and minor traders will be identified in terms of their ethnic origin, and the main commodities imported and exported will be shown. In this respect, shipping lists will show the number of out-going and in-coming ships, their port of embarka- tion and their destination, the frequency of their movements, the flags they sailed under, their size and the cargoes that they carried and, where possible, the size of the crew and the identity of the captain.
The development of trade over time and the shifts in the trading patterns of Melaka and Penang will be shown and some indication of the influence of external factors on trade, such as change in the political situation in Europe and within the region, will be made. The period under study saw the Napoleonic wars being fought in Europe, which, as already mentioned, saw Dutch Melaka taken over by the English in 1794. In the Straits the long and protracted rivalry between the Malay trading centre of Riau and Melaka, first under the Portuguese and later under the Dutch, led in the period under study to open conflict in the 1780s. Apart from wars that could affect trade, the attitude of the native states in the region towards the Dutch and the English and their ports will also be examined. The role of Aceh as a major player in the politics and trade of the region is a case in point.
Port-towns did not exist in isolation from one another but operated in their surroundings and were in many ways connected and tied together. By looking at the two port-towns, new light might be shed on the Straits. It is expected that there was fierce competition between Melaka and Penang and that, indeed, Penang was established to attract trade and wealth away from Melaka. This study will look at the ways in which Penang and Melaka were positioned and how each became rooted in its own networks and environs. Thus, the Straits will be seen not just as a gateway between the Indian Ocean and China Sea systems, but as a world of its own, and a differentiated one at that.
Internally, the nature of the administration, the urban tradition and the morphology of Melaka and Penang will also be discussed. The extent to which the administrative policies and urban traditions of the Dutch differed from those of the English will be discussed. How these policies and tradi- tions affected the morphology of the town will be shown. It should be noted that in respect to urban development other factors such as trade and legacies of an earlier period will be considered.
The third theme will focus on society. The character of the society, the ethnic composition and the relationship between one group and another will be examined. As colonial port-towns have been said to foster plural societies, an attempt will be made to see to what extent the societies in Melaka and Penang exhibited such pluralistic tendencies and to what extent they differed from the expected norm. Further, the theory that the popula- tion was made up of mostly migrants (Europeans, Burghers, Chinese, Keling, Chulias and Moors) will be tested. As Melaka and Penang are well known for having fostered mixed groups, such as the Portuguese- Eurasians, the Jawi-Pekan and the Chinese Peranakan , the extent of ethnic amalgamation will be studied.
As mentioned above, the development of Melaka and Penang during this period places the study in an important transitional phase, which saw the beginnings of English ascendancy in the China trade as well as the influx of Chinese migrants and the spread of their economic influence in the region. This brings into focus the rise of European trading activities and the simultaneous decline in the role of native and Asian traders in long distance intra-Asian trade. The bigger players in the trade, European company traders as well as the country traders who, with the backing of shareholders in Europe, had greater resources and bigger ships, were able to a large degree to establish a stronger presence. This can be seen from their ability to establish more colonial ports during the whole of this transition period. Thus, if a late eighteenth century traveller made a voyage from Europe to East Asia, navigating round the African continent, across the Indian Ocean and into the Malay-Indonesian archipelago to China and Japan, he would encounter various strategically located port-towns, a fair number of which were already controlled by Europeans, namely, the Portuguese, Dutch, English, French and Spanish.
Using these port-towns as bases, European traders, especially the Dutch and English, who were the most aggressive during the period under study, made inroads into and gained considerable control of the intra-Asian trade networks. In Southeast Asia, the control of trade can be seen, for example, from the Dutch ability to impose a policy of trade monopolies that was implemented through a system of trade regulations and duties and the sign- ing of trade treaties with native chiefs and rulers. Similarly, English traders who were establishing a strong presence in the Indian subcontinent and, from there, were launching attempts to gain entry into the lucrative China tea trade, were seeking a greater share of the products offered by Southeast Asia to reduce the drain on English bullion. The search for a strategic location in Southeast Asia which could enable the English to command the region’s trade and control the trade route between India and China had in fact led to the acquisition of Penang in 1786. While trade and commerce expanded in Southeast Asia, this era saw the decline of the Asian traders, when fewer of them appear to have had the means and resources to participate in long distance trade. Foremost among those who survived as long distance traders were the Indians and Chinese, some operating from India and China respectively, and others from ports in Southeast Asia. In sharp contrast to the situation before the eighteenth century, native Southeast Asian traders increasingly were reduced to operating within the region mostly engaging in short distance trade, sailing in small boats along the coastlines of Southeast Asia and carrying with them small quantities of jungle products, food items and other produce for exchange.
Along with this development and as a result of the expanding com- mercial networks within Southeast Asia brought about by the expanding China trade, the region saw a corresponding expansion in the role of the Chinese in many aspects of its economic life. This phenomenon roughly coincided with the period between 1740 and 1840, inspiring Reid and Trocki to label it as the ‘Chinese century’. During this period, Southeast Asia saw an increased influx of Chinese migrants, an increase in Chinese settlements, trading networks and Chinese trade, a vigorous Chinese involvement in agricultural, mining industry, revenue farms and an increase in the Chinese population in many port-towns and their hinterlands. According to Reid, the influx of Chinese to Southeast Asia in 1754 was due to relaxation of hitherto strict rules imposed by the Chinese authorities on overseas travel. In that year the Chinese government declared that any Chinese living overseas with valid reasons would be entitled to return home and have his property protected. Due to the effect of this more lenient rule, an outflow was seen of traders, miners, planters, shipbuilders, mariners and others from China into Southeast Asia. In 1830 the total Chinese exodus to Southeast Asia was estimated at ‘nearly a million’ people, which represented about 3 per cent of the Chinese population. These Chinese migrants were an essential resource for many port-towns and native kingdoms in South-east Asia.
It is suggested here that the general trends, both in terms of the players in the trade and the position of the Chinese were largely reflected in the trading activities as well as the development of Melaka and Penang. The position and activities of the Chinese in Melaka and Penang and the attitudes of the Dutch and the English to them will be discussed. Finally, the acquisition of Singapore by the British in 1819 was a crucial factor in the long-term future of the two ports under study and the implications of the development of Singapore on the position and role of Melaka and Penang will therefore be discussed as well.