New Perspectives and Research on Malaysian History

Writing Marginalized Groups into Malaysian Social History

Writing Marginalized Groups into Malaysian Social History Haryati Hasan and Hamidin Abd Hamid Introduction This paper argues in support of the writing of social history, which does not constitute the main stream of Malaysian historiography. Its subject matter is the role played by Malay trishaw riders in Kota Bharu, Kelantan between the 1960s and 1980s as the ‘middlemen’ or pimps of prostitutes. The role of trishaw riders as actors in Malaysian history writing is seldom highlighted. This paper will first attempt to highlight the importance of social history in Malaysia and, secondly, examine the role of marginalized groups as actors in history. Malaysian history is very much an elite-dominated history, Rankean in its approach and subject matter. After nearly 50 years of independence it is high time for Malaysian historians to be more revisionist, to revisit history at the level of the lower strata of society, such as peasants and workers, and make it more representative of the common people’s experiences . Malaysian historians are still very reluctant to write on contemporary society or on social issues affecting the lives of the economically backward class of people. The Rankean conventional approach is heavily reliant on the archives for research and ignores analysis, interpretation, and nonconventional sources like statistics and oral accounts. The social science approach to history in research can tease out more evidence from a wider range of sources and offer to the historian valuable insights, and a wider scope of interpretation. This approach should not be left only to social scientists and political scientists. Interviews and oral testimonies, for instance, are important sources in social history to supplement the knowledge , which is sometimes not provided by documents and other archival sources. This paper draws its data and information on the trishaw riders and prostitutes in Kelantan from official papers, especially the reports of the Socio-Economic Research Unit in the Prime Minister’s Department, as well as those from the Kelantan Chief Minister’s Office, and the offices of the Police Department and the Legal Adviser. 147 In 1990, a group of scholars produced a book, The Underside of Malaysian History, which discussed and highlighted the importance of neglected groups in Malaysian history. The poor and marginalized groups such as prostitutes, plantation workers were the core subjects of the book. It was an attempt “to make present-day Malaysians conscious of the enormous contribution of their unheralded forbears.”1 To what extent it succeeded in raising Malaysian consciousness on “alternative history” is debatable, but what is important, is its implied criticism of the omission of neglected groups in the writing of Malaysian history. A prominent Malaysian historian, however, has criticized the book as being ‘too clinical’ and argued that the contributors still examined the marginalized groups from the official point of view instead of from that of the marginalized people involved.2 In defense of the book and its contributors, it needs to be stated that the origins, type or nature of the sources do not necessarily reflect the views of the essay writers, but more importantly, it is their interpretation and their framework of analysis that defines the ‘view’ of the writers. True, the problem of the sources in writing Malaysian social history cannot be ignored. However, despite using the official sources, the contributors have argued against the general view that it was nearly impossible to write Malaysian social history, especially about marginalized groups, because of the lack of relevant sources. They successfully showed that even with official sources one could write about marginalized groups in Malaysian history. What is essential, is the framework of analysis or the ‘theoretical framework’ to discuss and analyze the subject and the themes. This is something that needs to be addressed more often because the Rankean conventional historian cannot claim that the past only belongs to him/her. We need to use other disciplines, and their theoretical framework, to study and understand the past better. Writing Malaysian social history is not the same as writing Malaysian political history. The failure to recognize that each branch of history has its own distinctive methodology and approaches only delimits the range of methodologies and approaches to be used by historians in understanding our past better. The role of trishaw riders is the subject of an essay; chapter six, in The Underside of Malaysian History but the essay centers its discussion 148 1 P.J. Rimmer & Lisa M. Allen (eds.), The Underside of Malaysian History, Pullers, Prostitutes, Plantation Workers. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1990, p...