US Forces Pacific Culture Guide: Malaysia

Given the amount of information placed in a short 97 page guide, the guide is overall beneficial to a person like me who is new to Malaysian history. However, there were a few content issues that lowered my rating.

Malacca's Conversion to Islam
On page 23, the guide states that “in 1444, Malacca's sultan (king) Muzaffar Shah converted to Islam and declared his sultanate (kingdom) a Muslim state.” The way this statement is presented, it appears that the timeline of Malaccan conversion to Islam is clear and tidy. However, in reality, not only is the exact timeline of Malacca conversion to Islam debated, but also the succession of the first four or five sultans is unclear. Depending on historian, Muzaffar Shah may be the fourth or fifth Sultan of Malacca. Richard Wilkinson posited in A History of the Peninsular Malays, pp 31-37, that Muzaffar Shah was the fifth sultan, but that Muzaffar Shah may have been the third or fourth Muslim leader of Malacca. On the other hand, Richard Winstedt later argued in The Malays: A Cultural History that Muzaffar Shah was the fourth Sultan and that Parameswara (the first sultan from 1402-1414) converted to Islam and changed his name to Iskander Shah, thereby the first Islamic leader. The variety of modern viewpoints derives from the inconsistencies between Portuguese (Suma Oriental), Malay (Malay Annals) and Ming (Ming Shilu) written sources of the period. One of the best compilations of the various views on this period in Malaccan history can be found in Christopher Wake's “Malacca's Early Kings and the Reception of Islam” in Journal of Southeast Asian History, 104-128 (www.jstor.org/stable/20067505).

Ultimately, Muzaffar Shah's reign did solidify the presence of Islam in Malacca, and the Malay peninsula never looked back from Islam from that point on. However, the conversion may have been more gradual and nuanced, and the guide's appearance of certainty on the matter can be misguiding. Additionally, Wake lists Muzaffar Shah's reign as 1446-1459, while other authors list it as 1445-1459. The year 1444 used in the handbook can also not be conclusively determined.

Casualties of Japanese War Crimes
Page 27 quickly details some of the major atrocities committed by the Japanese, namely Sook Ching and the Railway of Death, during their World War II occupation of Malaya. The numbers and victims presented are also somewhat misrepresented though. The guide states over 50,000 Chinese-Malaysians were killed in Sook Ching, but a concrete basis for this number seems impossible to find. The Japanese claim only 5,000 died, while LKY gave a range of 70,000 to 90,000 in an interview with Discovery Channel. However, again, no clear foundation is given for these claims. Kevin Blackburn in “The Collective Memory of the Sook Ching Massacre and the Creation of the Civilian War Memorial of Singapore” in Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Asiatic Society (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41493428) states that LKY's numbers are “undoubtedly exaggerated” and argues of “strong evidence for a figure somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000.”

The main issue in this section however is more the treatment of the victims of the Thai-Burma Railway. The guide states that the Japanese forced “Chinese and Malays to work on the infamous Thai-Burma Railway, where an estimated 100,000 laborers died.” While the figure are more verifiably accurate than the Sook Ching deaths, glaringly omitted from this section is the fact that Tamil-Malaysians appear to be the primary victims. Survivor Rohan Rivett's book Behind Bamboo: Hell on the Burma Railway refers to the Asian laborers on the railway as “mainly Tamils from Malaya” and states that “at least 100,000 and probably as many as 250,000 [Tamil-Malaysians] perished” (p. 266). However, the guide fails to even include a mention of the Tamil-Malaysians as present on the railway, much less being a majority of the workforce/casualties.

MRLA or MNLA?
On page 28, the guide discusses the “Malayan Races Liberation Army (MRLA)” in the context of Malaya's post-World War II civil conflict or “emergency.” However, MRLA is a mistranslation of the Chinese name for the group which is correctly translated as “Malayan National Liberation Army” (MNLA). Karl Hack in “'Iron Claws on Malaya': The Historiography of the Malayan Emergency,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20072108), refers to the group using the MNLA title and states in footnotes that “in 1949, [the group] switched to ‘Malayan National (Min-tsu) Liberation Army'; the term min-tsu was unsatisfactorily translated as ‘Races' by Special Branch.” Furthermore, Chin Peng, the actual leader of the MNLA stated that MNLA was the correct translation.

Mouse or Deer?
In referring to popular myths in Parameswara's founding of Malacca, page 32 states “One of his dogs found a white deer mouse (notably alert mouse and not to be confused with mousedeer...)” However, in the Malay Annals, page 89, it states “One of his dogs roused a white pelandok, which attacking the dog, drove it into the water.” The clarification in this guide to state that Parameswara was observing a mouse and not a small deer appears to be inaccurate. “Pelandok” refers to a “mouse-deer” or “chevrotain,” specifically “Tragulus javanicus” which is an ungulate, not a mouse/rodent.

Inaccurate History of Malaysian Flag
Page 33 says that the blue in the Malaysian flag is the traditional color of Malay rulers, but Malaysia.gov (https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/138) states otherwise saying that the yellow of the crescent and star is the royal color of Malay rulers. Furthermore, the handbook states that the Malaysian flag was modeled on the design of the US flag. I couldn't find anything conclusive to support that. On the other hand, the white and red stripes seem to derive from the flag of the East India Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_East_India_Company) which further derived from the much earlier Majapahit flag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majapahit) while Johor's flag seems to provide the crescent and star design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_and_coat_of_arms_of_Johor).

Minor Complaints...
On pages 6-7, the guide does not mention Timor-Leste while listing out the nations in Southeast Asia. Most sources, such as the CIA Factbook list Timor-Leste in Southeast Asia. The decision to consider Timor-Leste in Australia and Oceania rather than Southeast Asia seems rather arbitrary as the author agency did not provide an explanation for the decision. Possibly this decision is based on the fact that, like Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste falls entirely on the eastern side of the Wallace Line.

Page 41 refers to the “Organization of Islamic Conferences.” This title changed to “Organization of Islamic Cooperation” in 2011, 4 years prior to the publishing of the guidebook.

Malaysia and Brunei's border is only around 165 miles according to the CIA Factbook, unlike 237 miles stated on page 33.

A couple minor typos including the Malay word for “councils” as “majilis” instead of “majlis.”