Colonialism

in Southeast Asia – its

impacts
Critique Paper on Robert Elson’s Reinventing a Region:
Southeast Asia and the Colonial Experience

By Jaemin Lee
















 Southeast Asia, a region that consists of countries that are geographically
southwest of East Asia, had never been defined by anything intrinsic to itself. For the
Chinese, the region was called ‘Nan Yang’, which literally means the Southern Ocean,
and for the Indians, it was ‘Further India’1 With the existence of formidable
mountain ranges that made inland interactions very challenging, Southeast Asia
never really had a historical hegemonic superpower like the Roman Empire and the
Tang dynasty, and for much of its history, pre-colonial Southeast Asian states
interacted more with other regions than they did with each other. In fact, it was the
European colonization that spurred interests in studying the region, and people
eventually came to define it as ‘Southeast Asia’. In addition to merely naming the
region, as Robert Elson states in his paper, ‘Reinventing a Region: Southeast Asia
and the Colonial Experience’, European colonization created a ‘fundamentally new
Southeast Asia’2.

In his paper, ‘Reinventing a Region: Southeast Asia and the Colonial
Experience’, Robert Elson mentions several ways in which European colonialism
influenced in shaping Southeast Asia. As Elson explains, Europeans changed the
region’s government administration method and economy after their arrival for the
best efficiency in ruling their colonies. In addition to these changes, Europeans
played a huge role in forming Southeast Asia’s national boundaries and ethnically
plural societies, both of which seem apparent nowadays. Firstly, in the pre-colonial
era, ‘statecraft in Southeast Asia had tended to express itself in traditional forms,
based on the principles that control of people was more important than control of
territory’3. However, the Europeans ‘fenced and atomized the region’4 and divided
Southeast Asian according to their interests, not according to other factors like
religions and ethnicity. Secondly, European colonialism brought a massive change to
socio-political situations and ethnicity demography in Southeast Asia. Since labor
was very high in demand, colonialists imported a great number of Indian and
Chinese populations to the region.5 As a result, the proportion of the Chinese and the
Indians in Southeast Asia’s overall population rose significantly.6

As seen in Africa, European colonialists marked borders all around the world
that are seen apparent on today’s map. Because territorial boundaries of African
countries were drawn based on each of European state’s interests, members of
different tribes were forced to mingle with each other, which eventually led to major
conflicts in the continent as exemplified by the Rwandan genocide that took place in
the late 20th century. Bordering of regions in Southeast Asia did not lead to mass
ethnic cleansing like the one seen in Africa, but without the intervention of
European colonialists, the map of Southeast Asia could have looked different to the
one we see today.
Previously ruled by the mandala system that operated with tribal groups
surrounding a preeminent leader without putting much emphasis on fixed territorial
boundaries, Southeast Asia was bordered for the first time in its history after the
arrival of Europeans. Similar to their counterparts in other continents, occupation
and bordering of Southeast Asia were based on the Europeans’ interests in
resources and geographical advantages. Even if Europeans had not colonized
Southeast Asia, the region would still have been separated into boundaries by now.
However, as mentioned above, since pre-colonial Southeast Asian administration
was less concerned about possession of territories, without the influence of
colonialism, the region would have been divided according to the geographical
locations of local leaders and their people.

In addition to drawing borderlines, Europeans colonialists contributed
significantly to making Southeast Asian societies heterogeneous. Even during the
pre-colonial period, there were Chinese and Indian residents in Southeast Asia
because Malaya, for example, was open to trades with states that were further away
than its inland neighbors.7 However, there is no doubt that without the impact of
colonialism, sociopolitical situation and the ethnic demographics in Southeast Asia
would have been very different from those nowadays.
Under the colonial rule, the Southeast Asian economy was focused on
producing resources for European states. Because what was available from the local
labor was not enough, colonialists imported foreign populations from elsewhere in
order to maximize profits. For example, in Malaysia, British Malaya imported a large
number of Chinese and Indian immigrants to produce as much rubber and tin as
possible, and in Myanmar, myriads of Indians were brought to assist the British with
jobs related to government administration, military, and commerce industry.
Creation of plural societies meant that people of diverse ethnic groups lived
together, but it did not mean that they integrated well with each other. In Malaysia,
after the end of the colonial period, Chinese, Indians, and locals were involved in
different sectors of the national economy, and they were separated from each other
geographically. Among the three representative ethnic groups, the Chinese were the
richest as they were involved in the modern sectors of the economy that yielded
much profit. The local Bumiputera, in contrast, made their livings mainly through
agricultural activities, and by 1970, their share of ownership in Malaysia only
accounted for 2.4%.8 The apparent wealth inequality, geographic and cultural
separation eventually caused the 1969 Riots that ended with deaths of more than a
hundred Chinese-Malays.
In Myanmar, on the other hand, immigration of Indian populations led by the
British caused conflicts between the locals and the newcomers. During the colonial
period, Myanmar was declared a province of India9 and the British hired Indians to
assist with the colonial duties such as government administration and military. The
local Burmese, on the other hand, were ‘pushed aside and were not being accepted
into government service’. 10 Eventually, during the early 20th century, there was a
widespread anti-Indian sentiment among the locals, and the anti-Indian sentiment
continued to last even after Myanmar’s independence from Britain.11
Because Southeast Asia neighbors both India and China, the ethnic diversity
in the region would not have been too different even if there had not been European
colonialism that lasted for centuries. Records tell that because Malaca was actively
involved in trading goods with India and China during the pre-colonial periods, the
region hosted diverse ethnic groups. However, had European colonialists not
prompted the mass importation of labor forces from the two countries, the ethnic
demographics and the sociopolitical situations would not have been the same. The
Chinese and Indians’ occupation of more developed areas and significantly greater
wealth made the task of ethnic integration difficult in Malaysia, and the 1969 riots
eventually triggered the UNMO to implement policies that favored the local
Bumiputeras. In Myanmar, with the Indians firmly in control of the colonial
government, the local Burmese had had the anti-Indian sentiment deeply rooted in
their minds, and when Myanmar was finally declared independent, hundreds of
thousands of Indians were forced to return to India.
The colonialist era had ended decades ago, but there is no doubt that its
legacies continue to live in Southeast Asia. The difference between the region today
and that in the pre-colonial period seems massive. As seen in history, everything
including empires, states, and people continues to change without colonialism, and
Southeast Asia would have changed for sure without the arrivals of Europeans.
However, had there not been colonial intervention, Southeast Asia would not have
been the ‘Southeast Asia’ that we see on today’s map and hear from news articles.
The territorial boundaries that were made for the first time in the region’s history
will most likely remain the same for a long time, and ethnic tensions will not
disappear as long as plural societies created by the Europeans continue to exist.










































Bibliography

1- Elson, R. E. (2009). Southeast Asia and the Colonial Experience [Abstract].
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 15.
2- Elson, R. E. (2009). Southeast Asia and the Colonial Experience [Abstract].
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 28.
3- Elson, R. E. (2009). Southeast Asia and the Colonial Experience [Abstract].
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 18.
4- Elson, R. E. (2009). Southeast Asia and the Colonial Experience [Abstract].
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 17.
5~6- Elson, R. E. (2009). Southeast Asia and the Colonial Experience [Abstract].
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22.
7- Roslan, A.H. (2001) Income Inequality, Poverty and Development Policy in
Malaysia, 4.
8- Roslan, A.H. (2001) Income Inequality, Poverty and Development Policy in
Malaysia, 5.
9- “Introduction.” The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and
the World, by Benedict Anderson, Verso, 2011, pp. 4–5.
10- “Chapter II Muslims in Burma During British Rule.” The Muslims of Burma: a
Study of a Minority Group, by Moshe Yegar, Harrassowitz, 1972, pp. 29–32.
11- “India and Burma: Working on Their Relationship.” India and Burma:
Working on Their Relationship, www2.irrawaddy.com/article.php?art_id=1170.