See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350370900

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trends

Conference Paper · January 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 693

5 authors, including:

R. Michael Feener
Kyoto University
105 PUBLICATIONS 1,187 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by R. Michael Feener on 25 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 [The Fourth Kashiyama Seminar]

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend

Fumiharu MIENO, BI Shihong, Nualnoi TREERAT,
Didi KWARTANADA and R. Michael FEENER

I. Introduction
Fumiharu Mieno
The fourth Kashiyama-seminar1) was held as an international symposium at the annual
conference of Japan Association for Asian Studies (June 2019, Keio University) on the theme of
“Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: New Perspectives on Inter-Asia Relations”. Discussions
focused on recent research trends of Southeast Asian Studies in the academic community in
Asia. Here we present a brief overview of these discussions with presentations by four invited
guests from aboard, and two discussants from JAAS.
Southeast Asian Studies have become remarkably globalized, through a series of transforma-
tions including a significant geographic shift of major research centers from the West to Asia
itself. The coverage of the studies to include within each Southeast Asian country is also
expanding beyond single-country case studies to include wider regional perceptives, compara-
tive studies, and international collaborations. Southeast Asian Studies are also an increasingly
active field in a number of East Asian countries including China, Taiwan and Korea, as well as
here in Japan. As result, a wider and deeper research network across Asia is emerging. These
significant developments in the field reflect the remarkable improvement of research environ-
ments at many universities in Asia over recent years and a deepening interdependence in the
region, and in several countries.
Current work on Southeast Asian Studies in Asia covers a diverse range of issues. Political
science work tends to focus on traditional topics such as democratization or domestic political
integration, while research concerns in the field of economics generally involves cross-regional
and globally comparative topics such as sub-regional development. Work on Islamic Studies
and Ethnic Studies of Chinese in Southeast Asia have been rapidly emerging in the humanities
and social sciences. Ethnic Chinese studies can be seen to coincide with Southeast Asia’s social
change toward overcoming conventional social taboos. Contemporary Southeast Asian studies
in Asia are diverse; those in China seems driven by Belt and Load Initiative’s momentum, while
those of Taiwan seems largely related to their concern on national security issues or reconsider-
ation of national identification.
The purpose of the symposium was to view these diversified research trends in the academic
community, and to discuss the future possibility. The remaining sections consist of extended
proceedings of four invited speakers’ presentations, whose brief profiles and topics are intro-
duced as follows.
Professor BI Shihong of Yunnang University in China is a recognized authority on Southeast
Asian Studies in the country. He has served as the deputy director of Institute of the Belt and
Road Initiatives in the university and is well versed in the issues of the China’s foreign policy.

18 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

Professor Bi presents here an overview of current research trend in Southeast Asian Studies in
China. He calls particular attention to work related to the Belt and Road Initiative.
Professor Nualnoi Treerat, an associate professor at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand, is
majored in economics and have serve as the director at Institute of Asian Studies in the univer-
sity, widely covering Asian studies based in Thailand. She made a presentation focusing on the
trend in research and organization setup on economic development of Indochina sub-region
centered in Thailand, pointing out the academic’s concerns tend to expand beyond simple infra-
structure construction toward the issues of information technology for coming digital economy
era, and of labour migration across the region.
Mr. Didi Kwartanada, a managing director at Nation Building Foundation in Indonesia is an
expert on ethnic Chinese studies and Indonesian Studies. He talked on the recent development
of ethnic Chinese studies in Indonesia, and its social background; while their culture had been
repressed in Suharto era, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia regained and further bloomed their iden-
tity after the new regime since 1998, and to nowadays.
Professor Michael Feener is currently a professor at Kyoto University, although at the time of
the symposium he was based in Oxford. His primary research field is Islamic studies with vari-
ous disciplines including Islamic law and history, in particular in Indonesia and in relation to the
broader Indian Ocean region. Professor Feener here presents an overview of the history and
contemporary developments in the study of Muslim societies of Southeast Asia, with particular
attention to the current expansion of work in this area within the region.
In their responses to these presentations Professor Kazushi Shimizu (Kyusyu University) and
Professor Masaaki Okamoto (Kyoto University) raised critical comments and questions various
angles, including considerations of economic integration in Southeast Asia, and possibilities for
utilizing new information technology tools for the further enhancement of research in the field
of Southest Asian Studies in Asia.

II. China’s Southeast Asia Studies under “the Belt and Road” Initiative
Bi Shihong
Since the launch of “the Belt and Road” initiative in 2013, more attention has been paid by
Chinese academics to the study of Southeast Asia. This area is key to the construction of “the
21st century Maritime Silk” and “the Silk Road Economic Belt”, as well as a priority direction
for China’s peripheral diplomacy. Along with Chinese enterprises and individuals’ increasing
investments in Southeast Asian countries, China’s demands for academic studies on Southeast
Asia are also growing. To grasp the tendency and future direction of China’s Southeast Asia
studies, this essay aims to expound themes and characteristics of China’s Southeast Asia studies
by analyzing China’s Southeast Asia studies scholars and their affiliated institutions based on
1470 papers about Southeast Asia published on CNKI2) and CSSCI3) from 2007–2017.
Mid-career (born in 1960s and 1970s) researchers comprise the largest proportion of Chinese
scholars working on Southeast Asia. They have mostly trained at Chinese universities or
research institutions, receiving doctorates in various social science disciplines. Scholars who
majored international relations, international political science or history account for 75% of all.
The geographic and institutional distribution of Southeast Asia studies scholars in China is
much more concentrated.
Jinan University and Xiamen University are the major academic centers of Southeast Asian
studies in China. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Yunnan University, Sun Yat-sen
University and Peking University are also important research institutions. These six institutions
rank in the top six of all that have published research papers on Southeast Asia. Guangdong and
Beijing are the most concentrated province and city as for research institutions on Southeast

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 19

Asia Studies. According to the number of papers published by these 6 institutions, this paper
divides China’s research institutions on Southeast Asian issues into three levels. The first level
includes Jinan University and Xiamen University, and the second level is the four institutions
ranked from 3rd to 6th, including the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Peking University,
Sun Yat-sen University and Yunnan University, the third level includes six institutions ranked
from 7th to 10th, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China Foreign Affairs University,
Nanjing University, Wuhan University, Renmin University, and Fudan University.
From the topics covered in the 1470 papers, China’s Southeast Asian studies mainly focus on
ASEAN policy issues, the South China Sea dispute, Southeast Asian countries, bilateral rela-
tions, sub-regional cooperation, overseas Chinese and so on. As shown in table 1, an in-depth
analysis of current situation as for the economic, political, social and cultural history for a
Southeast Asian country is the most favored topic for Chinese scholars, followed by the studies
on ASEAN and South China Sea disputes. These three topics account for almost 2/3 of the total
papers on Southeast Asia studies. Bilateral relations and overseas Chinese are not the most
important issues, but they also occupy a significant proportion of papers published in China on
Southeast Asia studies.

Table 1 Number of research papers in Southeast Asia about different topics

Issue type Quantity Proportion (%)
ASEAN 225 15.31
South China Sea dispute 185 12.59
Southeast Asian countries 563 38.30
Bilateral relationship 165 11.22
Sub-regional cooperation 31 2.11
Overseas Chinese 105 7.14
Other 196 13.33
Total 1470 100
Source: Author’s Calculation based on CNKI and CSSCI (2007–2017)

It is worth mentioning that, from the perspective of research methods and theoretical
approaches, China’s Southeast Asia studies have shown significant diversity, that is, scholars
use their own disciplinary methods like historical, social, political, economic, and legal disci-
plinary theories to analyze Southeast Asia issues. This illustrates the interdisciplinary nature of
regional country studies and the need for ‘interdisciplinary talents’. It has also made it impossi-
ble for us to sort out China’s Southeast Asia studies with the theoretical system or methodologi-
cal path of a certain discipline.
There are some deficiencies in Southeast Asia studies as well. First, Southeast Asia remains
relatively marginal in the field of international studies in China. In fact, the proportion of
Southeast Asia papers in CSSCI journals is not prominent and specialized research institutions
are few. If more investment is not made now to consolidate and further develop the work being
done by scholars currently engaged in Southeast Asia, the future of Southeast Asian studies in
China may be in a crisis of temporary talent shortage.
Second, the issues treated by Chinese work in Southeast Asian Studies have been relatively
concentrated. Although the shortcomings at the end of the 20th century of “emphasizing on his-
tory and paying less attention to economic politics” have been basically overcome, there are
still imbalances in the attention to real problems, including the imbalance between economic
and political fields, as well as between actual demand and research results.
Third, a Sino-centric character dominates Southeast Asia Studies in China. This is mainly
manifested in two ways. The first is that the research is directed toward serving the Chinese

20 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

government’s policy goals and implementation. The second is a perspective that views
Southeast Asian countries primarily in relation to China’s national interests as a rising world
power. The key is to find a balance between ‘serving policy practice in China’ and appropriately
study the region on its own terms.
Fourth, the comparative horizon and historical context of much work being done today is
insufficient. Chinese scholars have a produced a large body of work on Southeast Asian coun-
tries, but they are rather limited in scope and lacking in terms of relevant contextualization.
Many scholars study only a single country in the Southeast Asia, and pay little attention to other
neighboring countries or international scholarship on the region. Therefore, they cannot grasp
future trends of a country in Southeast Asia from global or regional development perspectives.4)
Fifth, there is a serious disconnection between some vital components of academic work:
language, theory and methodology. China’s Southeast Asia studies scholars who can read and
engage with English and/or Japanese scholarship on the region generally have better developed
theoretical models to inform their own work. However, they rarely conduct field research in a
particular country in Southeast Asia, nor can they read the literature in Southeast Asian local
languages. Translations are therefore essential for them—with all the limitations that implies.
Experts who master the language of a certain country in Southeast Asia often have poor
English. They can neither communicate well with the international academic community, nor
have the self-confidence of using relevant theories, concepts and paradigms discussed by inter-
national scholars writing in English.5)
Sixth, international influence is limited and not in line with the global academic conversa-
tions. The study of development trends in Southeast Asia is thus unable to meet the needs of
China in building better relationships with countries in the region neighboring diplomacy and
opening up. Over the 40 years since the beginning of reforms to the present, few Chinese schol-
ars have accurately judged the changes in the elections of important Southeast Asia countries
such as Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, and Philippines.
In summary, although certain progress has been made, the overall development of Southeast
Asian Studies in China remains relatively sluggish, and its position within China’s international
studies landscape is not outstanding. In the future some progress will need to be made. Talent
training must be in line with international standards. Research institutions should encourage tal-
ent from different disciplines to join the Southeast Asian research team and cultivate more inter-
disciplinary collaborations.
Second, scholars should improve the level of theoretical application and research standard-
ization. On the one hand, China’s Southeast Asia research institutions can regularly train young
scholars and invite top scholars from home and abroad to teach. On the other hand, Chinese
scholars should themselves actively learn cutting edge theories, methods and paradigms devel-
oped abroad. This would require new work to translate and publish foreign scholars’ latest
works on Southeast Asian studies to catch up with current global developments in Southeast
Asian Area Studies.
Third, the research agenda must be multi-pronged. The overall research on Southeast Asia
should be closely integrated with country studies and researches in specialized fields. It is nec-
essary to strengthen research on both individual Southeast Asian countries and also on the
region as a whole, refine its overall characteristics, and strengthen the study of the impact of
specific variables such as economic development, social structures, political, cultural, historical,
and external factors framing current events in Southeast Asian countries.
Fourth, scholars must improve their language skills, mastering multiple languages, and attach
importance to field investigations. In this way, scholars can truly understand the many nuances
of Southeast Asian countries and the characteristics of a specific country’s culture and politics.
Fifth, scholars must learn and adopt new research methods. Without neglecting qualitative
research, scholars should be incorporating quantitative methods to produce more robust data

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 21

and expanded horizons of analysis. The application of complex statistical methods could, for
example, be integrated into models for the prediction of elections results in Southeast Asian
countries, and the assessment of political risks of countries along “the Belt and Road”.
Sixth, scholars should enhance collaborations with broader networks of colleagues to avoid
‘re-inventing the wheel’ and instead aspire to achieve an upward spiral of progress and innova-
tion and development based on the previous studies. With these considerations in mind, Chinese
scholars could produce more sophisticated results that could serve the interests of China, while
also presenting accurate and insightful studies the region.

III. Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand under Regional Development

Cooperation
Nualnoi Treerat
Since the foundation of ASEAN in 1976, ASEAN initiatives have played their role in
contributing to development cooperation in Southeast Asia in three dimensions: political and
security, economic, and social and cultural. A rising of geopolitical competition has called for
ASEAN to extend development cooperation to countries outside the region and maintain the
ASEAN centrality. Besides, a rapid change of technology towards the digital economy will
pressure ASEAN to catch up and keep the region competitive. Demands for Southeast Asian
Studies are increasing and extending. However, about 80% of the academic studies focused on
the framework of cooperation and country related issues. This article focuses on Southeast
Asian studies based on economic cooperation and development. To understand the situation and
its role of Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand, regional development cooperation and its
environment are discussed.

ASEAN: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASEAN was established in 1967 during the Cold War with five members (Indonesia,
Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand), focusing mainly on political and security-
oriented issues in the region. Brunei Darussalam became an ASEAN member in 1981. After the
end of the Cold War in the 1980s and the beginning of regional integration and free trade area in
the 1990s, ASEAN launched regional economic integration in 1992, the ASEAN free trade area
(AFTA) agreement, through a reduction of trade barriers in both tariff and non-tariff barriers
within the member countries. This was the new path of ASEAN cooperation on economic
development and led to a rise in intra-trade and FDI as well as migration. This agreement was
adjusted and extended to cover situations of new members who joined ASEAN, respectively,
Vietnam in 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar in 1997 and Cambodia in 1999.
In 2003, ASEAN proposed the Initiative for ASEAN Integration plan for ASEAN
Community in 2020 (three major pillars: Security Community, Economic Community and
Socio-Cultural Community). Later, ASEAN decided to speed up to 2015. The implementation
plan partly involved building CLMV capacity and narrowing down the development gap.

Regional Cooperation: GMS, ASEAN and LMC and their role in economic development
Apart from ASEAN cooperation, a small group within the members has been formed according
to common member’s issues and environment. The Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS)
Cooperation started in 1992 with assistance from the Asian Development Bank. The GMS
consists of 6 members, Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China (PRC, specifically Yunnan
Province and Guangxi Zhuang), the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Myanmar,
Thailand and Vietnam. The GMS cooperation was the main foundation for the beginning of
economic development after the end of the Cold War in this sub-region.

22 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

Basically, GMS cooperation aims to:
- Strengthen “Connectivity” through physical infrastructure and the development of eco-
nomic corridors: the East-West, North-South and Southern Economic corridors
- Improve “Competitiveness” through market integration and the facilitation of cross-border
trade and people mobility
- Build a sense of “Community” by addressing shared social and environmental concerns

Lately, China has proposed the establishment of the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation

Framework at the 17th China-ASEAN Summit in November 2014. The first meeting comprised
of 6 leaders of China, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand. Lancang and Mekong
refer to the river that originates in China’s Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and runs across China,
Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. It is called the Lancang in China, but has
been named the Mekong after leaving China. The Lancang-Mekong river is nearly 5,000 kilo-
meters in length, covers an area of around 800,000 square kilometers, and involves with the
livelihood of more than 300 million people.
The 5-year Plan of Action for Lancang-Mekong Cooperation was launched in 2018. This
Plan was drawn up in accordance with China’s Belt and Road initiative and the ASEAN
Community Vision 2025 as well as the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025.
GMS has become an attractive form of geopolitics. Apart from GMS cooperation, there are
many types of cooperation arising during the last two decades, such as

- Mekong-Ganga Cooperation, led by India,

- Mekong-Japan Cooperation, led by Japan,
- Mekong-Republic of Korea Cooperation, led by South Korea,
- Lancang-Mekong Cooperation, led by China,
- and Lower Mekong Initiatives, led by the US.

The main issues of academic studies in the Mekong sub-region are still connectivity, produc-
tion capacity building, cross border economic cooperation, infrastructure development, poverty
reduction, and conservation of resources and environmental protection. Overall, the economic
growth rates of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar exceeded 7 per cent annually in the last decade
and will continue to grow more than 6 per cent annually in the next 5 years, while the Thai eco-
nomic growth rate was less than 4 per cent per annum in the last decade. Income per capita of
Thai people was 3 to 4 times higher than other member countries of the Mekong sub-region.
This indicated the development gap among country members. However, due to the rapid change
of technology towards the digital economy, new technology will become one of the important
factors of development in the next decade. Therefore, infrastructure development will cover not
only traditional physical infrastructure, such as roads, rail and ports but also new infrastructure
such as information technology and digital economy platforms. Besides, migration is still an
important issue in the sub-region as Thailand enters the aging society, leading to a shortage of
labor supply. In the last two decades, the large inflow of migration workers from Myanmar,
Cambodia and Laos helped to fill the gap; however, the rapid change in technology towards the
digital economy, will lead to a change in the pattern of work and required skills. The need for
migrant workers from neighboring countries will therefore change. Most economic develop-
ment studies in Thailand on the Mekong sub-region have been concerned with the cooperation
frameworks as well as the impact of development plans on the environment and livelihood of
people in the Mekong sub-region.

Regional cooperation outside the region.

In 1997, ASEAN launched the cooperation plan with three countries in East Asia, China, Japan

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 23

and South Korea, named ASEAN Plus Three. Later, the cooperation was extended to ASEAN
Plus Six, including China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand. In 2012,
ASEAN endorsed the framework of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in
ASEAN Plus Six and announced the launch of negotiations. This is a cooperation for the largest
free trade area covering a total population of more than 3.5 billion or 47% of world population,
a total GDP of 32% of global GDP and a trade share of about 29% of global trade.
Although, the cooperation among the Southeast Asian countries has promoted economic
growth and development in the region, an extended cooperation to countries outside Southeast
Asia will lead to more rapid change in economic development. Moreover, the regional develop-
ment initiatives challenge the role of ASEAN in shaping development cooperation with ASEAN
centrality.

Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand

Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand can be divided mainly into two groups according to the
research organizations: first is the permanent institutes with direct financial backup by
government and international organizations, and the second group is other research institutes
including university research institutes and NGOs.
The first group mainly comprises of two institutes such as Mekong Institute (MI) and
International Institute for Trade and Development (ITD)

- Mekong Institute (MI).

With financial support from the governments of New Zealand and Thailand, Mekong
Institute (MI) was established in 1995 to be the institute for economic development and
cooperation for the Greater Mekong Sub-region. The establishment was based on a concept
developed by Khon Kaen University.
In 2003, MI was transformed to a non-profit autonomous organization focusing on cross-
border issues, especially on rural development, good government, and trade and investment
facilitation. Later, it developed into an intergovernmental organization focusing on providing
human resource development and a capacity development learning program. MI has per-
formed policy research and recommendation services related to economic integration, trade
and investment promotion for the sub-region. It received financial support from several
sources, both international and domestic.

- International Institute for Trade and Development (ITD).

ITD was established in 2002 according to an agreement between the Royal Thai Government
and UNCTAD. ITD is a center for research and training. One of the objectives of ITD is to
promote cooperation on trade, finance, investment and development between countries in the
region and sub-region through collaborative research projects. Most of their research
involves the promotion of trade and investment as well as human capacity building.

Besides, the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have their own research
institutes to study issues related to politics and security.
The second group consists mainly of University Research Centers. Many universities have
contributed to the studies on economic development issues related to the countries in Southeast
Asia. Their research topics might or might not relate to the agreement framework. However,
subject to a limitation of financial support, many research topics were implemented according
to the policy of the source of funds. During 2013–2015, the Thai government announced the
allocation of research funds for the promotion of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). This
led to the establishment of more than 20 ASEAN research centers in Thai universities and the
increasing numbers of research projects related to ASEAN and country members. However, a

24 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

number of research projects were dropped after 2015. Besides, the rise of many forms of sub-
regional cooperation, such as Lanchang-Mekong Cooperation, Mekong-Republic of Korea
Cooperation, etc. also brought in research funds. Therefore, in the last decade, Southeast Asian
Studies in Thailand involved mainly agreement framework topics, and area-based studies
related to CLMVT (Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam and Thailand) topics.
Thai universities in the border or near border provinces have made high contributions to the
studies, such as Mae Fah Luang University in Chiang Rai, Chiang Mai University, Naresuan
University in Pitsanulok Province, and Ubon Ratchathani University in Ubon Ratchathani
Province. For Universities in Bangkok, Chulalongkorn University, Thammasat University, and
Mahidol University have played roles both in research and international graduate programs for
Southeast Asian Studies.
In summary, we concentrate on Southeast Asian studies related to development issues in
Thailand. Many studies on the same issue did not use the same approach. Researchers use their
own disciplinary fields. In some studies, with more than one researcher with different fields,
multidisciplinary approaches appear. I would like to point out that the demand for policy impli-
cation in cross-border issues is increasing, especially when facing the problem of inequality and
environmental issues. For example, to understand the critical and sensitive issues such as migra-
tion and mobility involving both positive and negative sides on political/security, economic, and
social/cultural impacts, multidisciplinary approaches are required, as well as an integration of
qualitative and quantitative methods. It is important to strengthen the research of Southeast
Asian Studies by promoting joint country and discipline research.

VI. Studying Chinese Overseas in Indonesia: Seventy Years’ Change and

Sustainability
Didi Kwartanada
In early 1950, shortly after the Dutch recognized Indonesian independence, the Foreign
Ministry set up a “School of Sinology”. The initiator had suspicions about both Communist
China and the 3 million Chinese overseas in Indonesia, which he considered “the source of
subversion”. The first batch consisted of 20 students and, arguably, this could be regarded as the
earliest effort to study the ethnic Chinese by Indonesian authorities.
This preliminary work describes the study of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia during “long sev-
enty years” (1950–2019). Since there have been the so-called Sukarno Era (1950–1965), New
Order (1966–1998) and Post-1998 in Indonesian history, has there been any change and sustain-
ability? What are they? How was characteristics of studies up to 1998? With the coming of
openness during the Reformation era, are there any novelties in the ethnic Chinese studies? If
yes, what are they?
This report will focus more on studies and sources published by Indonesians published from
1998 to date.6) Some of the materials discussed are of limited distribution and not deposited in
any international libraries. Hopefully, the materials discussed will provide an overview of ethnic
Chinese voices from within.

Historical Background
Generally stated, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia consist of locally-influenced peranakans and
Chinese-oriented totoks, while the younger generation is more inclined toward global identities.
When Indonesia proclaimed its independence in 1945, however, nearly half of Chinese
Indonesians failed to secure Indonesian citizenship, either because of continuing loyalty to
China or Taiwan, or because of the difficulties in gaining citizenship papers. Many of these
people became stateless when Indonesia broke off diplomatic relations with China after the

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 25

1965 coup.
The New Order government imposed an assimilation policy on the Chinese from the 1970s.
The use of Chinese language and characters in schools, signboards, and newspapers, was
banned. Chinese were coerced into take Indonesian names. The state established an intelligence
agency tasked with surveilling the Chinese, “The Coordination Agency of the Chinese Problem
(Badan Koordinasi Masalah Cina)”. However, President Suharto maintained close personal ties
to certain wealthy ethnic Chinese tycoons, and offered them substantial economic privileges.
The birth of the Reformation era, which was preceded by the May 1998 riot, transformed the
daily lives of ethnic Chinese. Chinese schools, press and organizations returned into existence
and Lunar New Year was declared as a national holiday. Several Chinese politicians were
elected as local-level officials. However, the rise of religious extremism and identity politics,
currently manipulated the Chinese as scapegoats in social media, thus creating the so-called
“Old Stereotypes, New Convictions” (Herlijanto 2017).

Indonesian Works on the Chinese to 1998

During the New Order, very few books were available for reference. Part of the main sources
for writing academic studies were written by non-academia (including the intelligence). It is not
surprising that such studies will portray Chinese as “a problem”. Several characteristics for
these kinds of works were: suspicion of Chinese as the fifth column of Communist China (as an
effect of the Cold War) and negative stereotypes (exclusive, economic animal, and have no
loyalty to Indonesia). Therefore, to solve the “Chinese problem”, they had to be assimilated,
throw away their Chineseness (including name changing) and became “good Indonesians”.
It should be noted that the call for assimilation also received support from a certain Chinese
Indonesian group, called the “assimilationists”. Among its prominent members was the Muslim
Chinese Junus Jahja, who was a prolific writer. Jahja published numerous books and pamphlets
supporting government’s policy to make its Chinese subjects “true Indonesians”, and he also
campaigned for conversion to Muslims, as he himself did.
Other more balanced works, written by Chinese Indonesian academia, include Mely G. Tan,
Golongan Etnis Tionghoa di Indonesia (“Ethnic Chinese in Indonesia”, 1979, 1981, 1982), Leo
Suryadinata (who later became Singaporean), Dilema Minoritas Tionghoa (“Chinese Minority
Dilemma” 1984, reprinted 1986, 1987). The first is a collection of translations of foreign schol-
ars’ works such as G. W. Skinner’s classic (1963), while the second was a translation of
Suryadinata’s Ph.D thesis. I consider Dilema Minoritas Tionghoa as the most authoritative
study on Chinese Indonesians during the New Order.

Mapping the Subject Matter of Post-1998 Works

There is a growing interest within the last 20 years on the ethnic Chinese among Indonesian
scholars and public. On the other hand, the Chinese feel more open about themselves and
confidently produced various “ego-documents”, ranging from books and memoirs to movies.
References used in the academic studies are increasingly more varied than before, not only
stressing assimilation. For example, classic works by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (ed.),
The Invention of Tradition (1983), William Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship (1995,
Translated 2002, 2003) are widely quoted. Cultural studies are also gaining prominence, such as
theories on identities by Stuart Hall and a book by Ien Ang, On Not Speaking Chinese (2012).
This preliminary writing limits its study to works published in Indonesian, and rather ignores
the translation work. The works discussed are only those that can be accessed directly by the
author. In its limitations, the author tries to map the topics that have been published post-1998
on ethnic Chinese in the following twelve subject matters: (1) General works; (2) Biography
and memoirs; (3) Communities in various regions; (4) Economics and Business; (5) Religion
and Spirituals; (6) Genealogical Studies & Source Publication; (7) Gender; (8) Politics,

26 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

Citizenship and Identity: (9) Violence; (10) Arts, Literature, Culture and Sports; (11) Education;
and (12) Relations with China
One particular single work on the role and contributions of the Chinese to nation-building
was manifested in the work of Suryadinata and Kwartanada (2016), which compiled 129 essays
written by 73 authors. With total of 1,500 pages, this book is divided into three volumes.
Although there are drawbacks, this book received a positive response. The notable journal
Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (2017) praised the book by stating, “....This book
is a very complete standard work on the Chinese diaspora in Indonesia, which surpasses most,
if not all, previous works”.
There was a boom on biographies and memoirs, not only coming out from big businessmen,
but also to the relatively unknown professions such as the military and scientists, on the survi-
vors of the 1965 political turmoil. Some stories disclosed “taboo” topics, openly telling of busi-
ness relations with the family of President Suharto, a theme that was considered sensitive
among the totoks businessmen.

Inter-Asian Cooperation
As the terms of reference of the JAAS seminar mentions “Inter-Asia Connections”, let me talk
briefly about this topic. Beforehand, I will mention institutions related to the Chinese overseas
studies in Indonesia: (1) Center for Chinese-Indonesian Studies (CCIS) Petra University,
Surabaya (established 2011) ; (2) Centre for Chinese Diasporas and Cultural Studies
(CCDACS), later Centre for Chinese Diasporas Studies (CCDS); Maranatha Christian
University, Bandung; Finally, there was the Nation Building Foundation (Yayasan Nabil)
established by the industrialist Eddie Lembong (Wang Yousan) in 2006. This organization
actively held seminars, discussions, publishing books and newsletters concerning the Chinese in
Indonesian nation-building. However, Lembong’s death in late 2017 affected the activities of
this organization.
Nowadays there is a regular agenda concerning Chinese overseas study in Indonesia, the so-
called annual International Conference on Chinese Indonesian Studies (ICCIS Conference). It
targets audiences and participants from various groups of academics, professionals and practi-
tioners, government officials, and individuals in society. The maiden conference was held in
November 2013, under the name “International Conference of Center for Chinese-Indonesian
Studies” (ICCCIS) at Semarang. Since 2015, the conference has continued to be held as,

- The 2nd ICCCIS:

Held in February 2015 at Maranatha University, Bandung with its theme, “Chinese Diaspora
Tradition in Indonesia’s Nation Building: Challenges and Opportunities”.
- The 3rd ICCCIS:
Held in March 2016 at Tarumanegara University, Jakarta with its main topic, “Contribution
of Chinese Indonesian to Global Communities in the Past, Present, and Future”. This confer-
ence was increasingly recognized internationally. The speakers, presenters, and participants
came from China, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, USA and Indonesia. In total, there
was 45 presentations, 20 in English, 8 in Chinese and 17 in Indonesian.
- The 4th ICCIS:
Held in August 2017 at the University of Indonesia, with the topic “China’s Impact on
Southeast Asia and Its Diasporic Communities: Past, Present, Future”.
- The 5th ICCIS:
Held in November 2018 and for the first time the venue was abroad. It was co-hosted by
School for Southeast Asian Studies, Xiamen University, China, and the China Society for
Maritime History Studies and Quanzhou Maritime Museum, China. The main topic was
“Maritime Silk Road and Southeast Asian Chinese Diaspora: Past, Present and Future”.

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 27

 - The latest, 6th ICCIS:
Held in November 2019 at Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang, with the theme of
“Visual Culture of Chinese Diasporas in Asia”. As had been announced this event is sup-
ported by several universities in Indonesia, Rikkyo University (Tokyo) and Xiamen
University (China).

Smaller forms of Inter-Asian cooperation have also been held occasionally. Recently Prof
Kitamura Yumi (Kyoto University) with cooperation from Dr Thung Julan (Indonesian Board of
Sciences/LIPI) held a workshop of scholars from Indonesia, Japan, and Taiwan in November
2017 (Jakarta) and March 2019 (Taipei). Concerning a documentation project, Prof. Tsuda Koji
(Tokyo University) is actively making reprints of Chinese Indonesian primary sources (books,
journals and newspapers) from private collections and the Indonesian National Library in
Jakarta.

Future Agenda
As briefly mentioned, new approaches are gaining more and more attention. So far Chinese
Indonesia studies are still dominated by “great traditions”, namely focusing on those who live in
urban areas (urbanites), “elites” (rich and educated groups) ) and “political” groups, and still
ignore those who live in remote areas of the “village”, “small people” and “social” (non-
political) groups. Study of those who were ignored were quite important, because they were the
ones who had historically built socio-cultural realities that formed cross-cultural manifestations
in various regions of the archipelago.
The use of social science theories as well as cultural studies—outside the conventional
descriptive narrative writing pattern—also seems to be increasing. In the future, there will be
more and more studies of the Chinese communities in various parts of the archipelago, espe-
cially in Central and East Indonesia. The publications of primary sources will likely emerge.
Finally, what was discussed in this preliminary study is still far from complete and also does not
fully represent the existing “booming” phenomenon, so I strongly propose the compilation of a
bibliography. The more dominant the internet is becoming in our lives does not mean that we
can easily find out what has and has not been written about a particular theme.

Conclusion
Finally, allow me to give conclusions. First, during the New Order (1966–1998), not many studies
had been conducted on the topic with “assimilation” as the dominant tool of analysis. Second, there
was a boom in the study on ethnic Chinese in the Post-Suharto period, with more diverse topics and
tools of analysis. Third, there is a break from a Java-centered approach to various localities around
the archipelago. Fourth: the Indonesian Chinese, more particularly the Totoks (who are considered
a closed-group), are more confident in sharing their life histories, and publishing biographies
and memoirs in Indonesian (sometimes even written by non-Chinese writers). Fifth, despite the
flux of Chinese language sources, only a few Indonesian scholars are able to access them, and
mostly still rely on western language sources. Therefore, almost no comprehensive studies are
produced. However, more local scholars are publishing in good reputation journals in English.
Sixth, though we live in the digital era, ironically, it is not easy to trace thematic publications,
either old or new ones. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to compile a comprehensive
bibliography. To keep in mind, the last bibliography on the subject was published 30 years ago
(Oetomo 1989). Seventh, the current proliferation of hoaxes by certain political groups about
Indonesian Chinese people must be resisted by the experts in this field. There is an urgent need
to write extensively about this topic, thus bringing enlightenment to public.

28 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

 V. Islam in Southeast Asian Studies: Obscured Pasts and Contemporary
Developments
R. Michael Feener
Today Asia is home to the demographic majority of the world’s Muslims, and it has been so for
centuries. Despite this empirical reality, the study of Islam and Muslim societies has tended
toward a marginal position in Asian Studies—as has the study of most Asian Muslim societies
in mainstream Islamic Studies. Today, however, there are signs of new levels of creative
integration across these two broad fields of study, facilitated by the appearance of a generation
of scholars combining language skills in Arabic as well as diverse Asian vernaculars and
substantial ‘Area knowledge’ of societies in South, Central, East, and Southeast Asia. The level
of engagement across both textual and ethnographic methodologies that this makes possible
opens up new spaces for conversation on the vital role that Asian Muslim societies comprise in
within the framework of global Islam. It can also foster a new awareness of the potential
analytic implications of understanding Islam as an ‘Asian’ tradition—as much as one might
consider Buddhism, Chinese Traditions, or for that matter Christianity.
Here I present some thoughts on how established strengths of Southeast Asian Studies in par-
ticular could be built upon in engaging an expanded range of interlocutors to foster better
understanding. I will begin with some brief historical reflection on the modern academic field of
Islamic Studies, and how it has been configured in relation to ‘Asian Studies’ and other adjacent
fields. These entanglements and counter movements for more clearly distinguishing the bound-
aries between different areas of scholarship have shaped dynamics that continue to inform the
frameworks of research to this day.
Over the past fourteen centuries the expansion of Islam has transformed societies all across
Asia, producing a wide range of vernacular Muslim cultures of great complexity and internal
diversity. Today there are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, with most of the major
population centres being located in Asia and the top five largest Muslim national populations
being located outside of the Arab Middle East. Nearly sixty per cent of the Muslims living in
the world today do so in Asia. By comparison, the combined populations of all of the Arabic
speaking Muslim nations of the Middle East add up to less than twenty per cent of today’s
global umma. A demographer’s visual mapping of today’s Muslim populations would in fact
place the ‘centre of gravity’ of the Muslim world somewhere near Nawabshah along the banks
of the Indus River in Sindh.7) Seen in this perspective, peninsular Malaysia is actually closer to
the (demographic) center of the Muslim world than is Morocco.
Despite the demographic realities of the modern Muslim world, the academic study of Islam
remains plagued by a resilient bias privileging the Middle East not only as ‘central’ but also as
normative. Such orientations to the study of Islamic civilisation have had the unfortunate effect
of implicitly reducing other regions (even those with large majority populations that have been
Muslim for centuries) to the status of peripheries. On the other hand, despite its demographic
and historical significance in the region, Islam has, until recently, tended also to be rather mar-
ginalized as a field of investigation within Asian Studies. As Barbara Andaya has noted, despite
the complex ties that connect diverse parts of the region in terms defined by Muslim mobility,
as well as by circulations of Islamic discourse and practice, “Muslim Asia is not a marked cate-
gory within Asia itself.”8) Chiara Formichi has, however, recently written an insightful essay
that critically analyses the relationship between the two fields, though with a focus more on the
place of Southeast Asia within the broader field of Islamic Studies through a critical examina-
tion of how the art and visual cultures of Muslim Southeast Asia are represented (or not) in
major museums in Europe and the United States to highlight the continuing sense of disconnect
across established silos of scholarship and cultural representation.9)
Well before the rise of modern Area Studies, the academic study of Islam emerged out of a

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 29

tangle of intersecting strand of commerce, conflict, and commentary on shared Abrahamic reli-
gious traditions. One of the most prominent factors here was the study of Semitic philology, in
which the focus was on the Arabic language and how that might be used comparatively to by
students of Divinity working on sacred texts in Hebrew and related languages. For example, the
first instructor of Arabic at Leiden University was Franciscus Raphelengius (d. 1597) who was
officially appointed as a Professor of Hebrew, but also instructed students in Arabic as well.10)
Over the course of the seventeenth century the study of Arabic and Islam was also promoted
for more ‘practical’ uses in some European universities. In his inaugural lecture as Professor of
Arabic at Leiden in 1613, the Dutch scholar, Erpenius, balanced remarks on the theological and
historical importance of Arabic with a more pronounced emphases on its utilitarian uses. In
addition to his more academic researches, Erpenius was also nominated as official Arabic trans-
lator for the States General. Upon his death, the bulk of his books and manuscripts were
acquired for the Cambridge University Library, but the new fonts that he had designed for the
printing of Arabic and other ‘Oriental’ languages remained in Leiden.11)
By this time, the ‘practical’ importance of Arabic Studies for purposes of trade and diplo-
macy was also being increasingly recognized in Europe.12) In the collections of texts acquired in
such contexts by diplomats and scholars of the period it is nonetheless evident that the Qurʾān
was one of the most commonly copied texts in Southeast Asian manuscript traditions—another
example of how much Islam is a much as part of ‘Asia’ as it is of the ‘Middle East’. Beyond its
religious significance, however, it was also becoming clear to some scholars that Arabic was a
valuable language for the study of the history and politics of local societies, as well as to the
study of comparative theology.
In the nineteenth century, the study of Arabic and Islam came to be configured as a compo-
nent of scholarly work on areas of Dutch colonial interest in Southeast Asia known as
‘Indology’.13) That expanding field combined linguistic training in Arabic and Sanskrit as prepa-
ration for the study of the various Austronesian languages of the East Indies with an eye to the
training not only of future philologists but also cadres of expert advisors and administrators for
the growing Dutch administration of the colonies.14) This included attempts at providing colo-
nial administrators in the Indies with a working knowledge of Islamic law, resulting in the pro-
duction of translations and handbooks intended as a references for colonial jurists.15)
Law came to establish itself as central to the consolidation of the modern field of Islamic
Studies over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. One of leading scholars involved
in this formation of the field was yet another Dutchman: Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (d.
1936).16) Snouck’s formal training in Semitic languages was firmly situated in the mainstream of
philological scholarship in Arabic at the time.17) However shortly after completion of his formal
studies, Snouck’s attention was increasingly attracted towards matters dealing with the Muslim
population of the Dutch East Indian colonies. During a six-month sojourn in Mekka over 1884–
1885, he focused his attention on the semi-permanent colonies of Southeast Asian students and
teachers active in the Holy City of Arabia.18)
Snouck’s remarkable—and politically problematic—career spanned divisions between
regions that came to be defined in Areas Studies terms of the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
Following up on his path-breaking ethnography of Mecca, Snouck conducted investigations in
the politically troubled region of Aceh at the northern tip of the island of Sumatra and other
parts of the Indonesian Archipelago. His monumental two-volume work on Aceh (on the north-
ern tip of the Indonesian Island of Sumatra) covers geography, language, literature, religion and
politics and set a new standard for the study of Muslim societies in its combination of textual
philology, ethnographic focus on everyday practice, and critical attention to the broader social
and political milieu in which interpretations of Islam were produced and preserved.19) Here we
have a striking example of work informing the field of Islamic Studies coming in the form of
substantial engagement with research on particular communities in Southeast Asia.

30 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

 Snouck worked his extensive networks of ulama and colonial officials to acquire a remark-
ably rich collection of manuscripts that included works in Arabic, as well as in a number of
regional Muslim vernaculars (Malay, Javanese, Sundanese, Acehnese, &c.) in both Arabic and
local scripts. While a handful of his Dutch and Indonesian students focused their philological
work on these Southeast Asian texts, the mainstream of the field of Islamic Studies came to
coalesce around Arabic, Persian, and Turkish in ways that served to more constrictively define
Islam as a largely a ‘regional tradition’ of the Middle East—thus often seen as distinct from the
world of Asian Studies and leading to a considerable disconnect between the fields.20)
On the other side, over the second half of the twentieth century, Islam was to a considerable
degree ‘obscured’ in the work of what emerged as the mainstream of Southeast Asian studies in
Europe, Australia, and the United States. Within Islamic Studies, however, there were some
important counter-currents toward recognizing the importance of Islam in societies outside of
the Middle East, including Southeast Asia. Toward the turn of the twenty-first century a new
generation of scholars pushed things further to produce work straddling established boundaries
between Islamic Studies and Southeast Asian Studies—and I consider myself among them.
Since then, an expanding body of work has been produced on the history and contemporary
experience of diverse forms of Muslim belief, practice, and aesthetic expression in the region.21)
Other important moves in this direction came not out of philology, but anthropology. Talal
Asad’s opening up of new lines of conversation on the Anthropology of Islam, for example,
came to inform a wave of studies of Muslim societies in Asia (and beyond) demonstrating more
substantial recognition of the importance of diverse configurations of Islam in Southeast Asia
and elsewhere in the broader region, in relation to intra-Muslim debates over matters of belief
and practice, political dynamics, and trans-regional connections. For work on Indonesia, we
have the pioneering studies of Robert Hefner and John Bowen, and the subsequent flourishing
of the field propelled by the contributions of many other scholars. This was, moreover comple-
mented by the work of historians who revisited the importance of Islam in longer-term and
ongoing transformations of societies across the region. Parallel shifts in a new attention to Islam
are also evident in many other disciplinary sub-fields of Southeast Asian Studies, such as in
Political Science.
Other important dimensions of these reconfigurations of the field were connected with the
expansion of Southeast Asian Studies—and Islamic Area Studies—in programs beyond the
Anglophone and European centres that had dominated scholarship over the second half of the
twentieth century. Here in Japan, pioneering studies of Islam in Southeast Asia were produced
across diverse disciplines of the Humanities and Social Sciences by scholars including
Nakamura Mitsuo and Nakamura Hisako, Ito Takeshi, Shiraishi Saya, Imanaga Seiji, Omar
Farouk Bajuneid, and Kobayashi Yasuko—and followed up by successive generations through
the efforts of Miyazaki Koji, Aoyama Toru, Kawashima Midori, Miichi Ken, Okamoto
Masaaki, Sugahara Yumi, Ota Atsushi, Hattori Mina, Yo Nonaka, Sasaki Takuo, Kushimoto
Hiroko, Shiozaki Yuki, and an impressive current cohort of new PhDs. Such work has also been
becoming better known internationally over recent years as more of this work has been pro-
duced in and/or translated into English.
At the same time, there has also been increasing integration of social science and humanities
approaches to the study of Islam in Southeast Asian countries—particularly in Indonesia which
has likewise produced a burgeoning number of local scholars who combine a strong set of lin-
guistic skills and engagement with new critical methodologies. A number of them have been
gaining increasing international prominence in the field over recent decades well beyond their
home country—writing from perspectives that often view Islam as integral to the societies of
Asia, and not as an ‘import’ from the foreign terrain of a different field of Asian Studies.22)
Alongside their work in the social sciences, Indonesian scholars have, for example, also worked
to re-invigorate philological research on texts in both Arabic and Southeast Asian vernaculars

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 31

that is providing new depth to and critical interpretation of the formation of Islamic traditions in
the region.23) With such developments in Japan and Southeast Asia we see clearly the impact
being made over recent years on multiple fronts to establish new models of Asian Studies in
Asia.
More specifically in relation to Islam, over the past two decades then we have witnessed the
massive production of new work that has comprised—from a variety of different disciplinary
perspectives—what could be considered a seismic shift in the ways in which aspects of Islamic
studies have come to be integrated within Southeast Asian Studies. In the process, we are
becoming better able to perceive not only the importance of Islam there, but also the role that
Muslims from the region are playing today within the broader world of Islam. For example, a
range of new forms of Islamic ideas and institutions ranging from Islamic finance, modern
Muslim consumer culture, halal certification, and Qurʾān recitation tournaments were each to
significant degrees pioneered in Southeast Asia before emerging as more widely diffuse aspects
of the lives of Muslims around the world today.
With the evolving profile of Southeast Asia within the broader Muslim world and the
increased levels of engagement across textual, ethnographic, and social science methodologies
embodied in a the current generation of scholars from both within and beyond the region we see
the opening of new spaces for conversation on both the vital role that Asian Muslim societies
comprise in within the framework of global Islam, and a greater awareness of the potential ana-
lytic implications of understanding Islam as, in a significant sense, an ‘Asian’ tradition.
Exploring the interpretive implications of shifting frames of analysis across, for example,
Islamic Studies, Asian Studies, and Indian Ocean Studies thus presents us with possibilities and
challenges, both conceptually and practically, that should be brought to the fore in critical dis-
cussions of the future of our fields.

Notes
1) The third and fourth Kashiyama Seminars on the topic of ‘Asian Studies in Asia’ (2018–19) focused on the theme
of ‘Asian Studies in Asia’. The events were coordinated by a sub-committee of JAAS executive board, with Shin
Kawashima convening the 2018 event on the topic of Chinese Studies, and Fumiharu Mieno convening the 2019
seminar on Southeast Asian Studies in Asia.
2) China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) is key project of national informatization construction, dedicated
to the mass digitalization of China knowledge resources, as well as creating the platform for global dissemination and
value-added services. CNKI started and first launched in June 1999 by Tsinghua University and Tsinghua Tongfang
Holding Group, supported by Education Ministry, Science and Technology Ministry, Propaganda Ministry and
General Administration of Press and Publications, CNKI is the most comprehensive gateway of knowledge of China.
Over 1,300 institutional customers overseas in 43 countries and regions, 20,000 institutional customers from a
various of industries in China mainland.
3) Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index，Abbreviated as CSSCI. The database was developed by Nanjing
University, which is used to retrieve the collection of papers and citations in the field of Chinese social sciences. The
database is an iconic project in the field of evaluation of humanities and social sciences in China. CSSCI has been
used by Chinese universities and other institutions, and as an important basis for academic, discipline, project and
outcome evaluation and review.
4) Wang, Zhouyi and Geng (2013), Qin, “Research on Regional Research and Its Compound Talents Training
Mechanism,” Management and Review of Social Sciences, No. 1, p. 43.
5) Li, Chenyang (2017), “Studies of Southeast Asian Politics in China: Reflection and Construction,” The Journal of
International Studies, No. 4, p. 145.
6) Two current scholarships on this topic must be mentioned. Mary Somers Heidhues has written an excellent survey
of English works on Chinese in Indonesia during fifty years. See Heidhues, Mary Somers (2017), “Studying the
Chinese in Indonesia: A Long Half-Century,” SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, vol. 32, no. 3,
pp. 601–633. It “shows how scholars have approached Chinese Indonesians, from outside or from within, how they
have changed their approaches, how Indonesia has changed, as have Chinese Indonesians, and how research centres
and research topics have moved on” (p. 601). Yerry Wirawan has meticulously documented ethnic Chinese research

32 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

 in the universities in Indonesia, 1960s to 2000s.” [“Penelitian Masyarakat Tionghoa Di Perguruan Tinggi di
Indonesia Tahun 1960-an hingga 2000-an”] paper presented at the national seminar “Commemoration of 60 Years of
National History Seminar” held at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, December 14–16 2017.
7) This ‘mapping exercise’ was originally prepared for and presented in: R. Michael Feener, “Issues and Ideologies in
the Study of Regional Muslim Cultures,” in: R. Michael Feener & Terenjit Sevea, Eds. (2009) Islamic Connections:
Muslim Societies in South and Southeast Asia, Singapore: ISEAS Press, 2009. Further discussion of the analytic
implications of this demography can be found there.
8) Andaya, Barbara Watson (2013), “Response to Prasenjit Duara, ‘Asia Redux,’” In: Prasenjit Duara, Ed. Asia
Redux: Conceptualising a Region for Our Times, Singapore: ISEAS, p. 73.
9) Chiara Formichi (2016), “Islamic Studies or Asian Studies? Islam in Southeast Asia,” The Muslim World, pp. 696–
718.
10) Witkam, J. J. (1997), The Arabic Type Specimen of Franciscus Raphelengius’ Plantinian Printing Office (1595): A
Facsimile, Leiden: University Library Leiden.
11) Pettegree, Andrew and der Weduwen, Arthur (2019), The Bookshop of the World: Making and Trading Books in
the Dutch Golden Age, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 174–175.
12) Vrolijk, Arnoud and van Leeuwen, Richard (2013), Arabic Studies in the Netherlands, 1580–1950, Leiden: Brill,
pp. 12–13.
13) For a critical study of this ‘science’ in its colonial context, see: Fasseur, Cees (1993), De Indologen: Ambtenaren
voor de Oost, 1825–1950, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
14) ‘Javanological’ studies came to play a major role, not only in the history of Dutch Oriental Studies, but also in the
modern development of the Javanese language and its literature. For an overview of these developments, see:
Tsuchiya, Kenji (1990), “19 Seiki Jawa bunkaron josetsu: Jawagaku to Rongowarushito no jidai,”/ Translated into
English as, “Javanology and the Age of Ranggawarsita: An Introduction to Nineteenth Century Javanese Culture,’”
Reading Southeast Asia, Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.
15) Perhaps the most influential example of this was the thirteenth-century text Minhāj al-Ṭālibīn, which was
published in French by the government press at Batavia in 1882, and later also appeared in an English translation for
easier use by British officials in neighboring Malaya and other colonial contexts: (1914) Minhaj et Talibin: A Manual
of Muhammadan Law according to the School of Shafiʿi by Mahiuddin Abu Zakaria Yahya ibn Sharif en-Nawawi,
London: W. Thacker & Co.
16) Snouck’s legacy has shaped both the development of Islamic Studies, as well as the study of Indonesia. See, for
example: Waardenburg, Jacques (1962), L’Islam dans le Miroir de l’Occident: Comment queques orientalistes
occidentaux se sont penchés sur l’Islam et se sont formé une image de cette religion: I. Goldziher, C. Snouck
Hurgronje, C. H. Becker, D. B. MacDonald, Louis Massignon, Paris: Mouton; Laffan, Michael F. (2013), The
Makings of Indonesian Islam: Orientalism and the Narration of a Sufi Past, Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University
Press, pp. 125ff.
17) As can be seen in his 1880 dissertation: Het Mekkaansche Feest, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
18) Snouck’s original two volume work on Mekka was written in German, and was supplemented with a photo Atlas
that includes striking images of Southeast Asian Muslim pilgrims and students in the Holy City in 1885. A single
volume abridged edition in English translation, including a selection of those photographs, has been published as:
Hurgronje, C. Snouck (1970), Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century: Daily Life, Customs and Learning. The
Moslims of the East-Indian Archipelago, Leiden: Brill. A more recent Dutch translation by Jan Just Witkam
(Amsterdam/Antwerpen: Atlas 2007) is prefaced with an illuminating account of Snouck’s early career up to the
publication of his work on Mecca, informed by a wealth of relevant correspondence.
19) Hurgronje, C. Snouck Hurgronje (1906), The Achehnese, 2 vols., translated by A. W. S. O’Sullivan, Leyden: E. J.
Brill. He later also produced a third ‘ethnography’ in 1903, Het Gajôland en zijne bewoners, Batavia: Landsdrukkerij.
This last work, however, pales in comparison to his earlier studies of Mekka and Aceh and suffers from the simple
fact that the information for this study was compiled largely through interviews with Gayo ‘informants’ in Batavia.
Snouck himself seems to never have actually visited the Gayo highlands. For a critical evaluation of this work in the
context of subsequent developments of the study of Islam in the region, see: Bowen, John R. (1991), Sumatran
Politics and Poetics, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 30ff.
20) I have discussed aspects of this problem further in: “Arabic before the ‘Middle East’: Southeast Asian
Engagements with a Cosmopolitan Language,” Middle East Studies Centre Seminar, St. Anthony’s College,
University of Oxford, March 2016.
21) For a more detailed bibliography on the current state of the field with particular reference to the history of Islam in
the region, see: Feener, R. Michael (2019), “Islam in Southeast Asia to c.1800,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of

Southeast Asian Studies in Asia: Recent Trend 33

 Asian History, Oxford University Press（2020 年 11 月 19 日最終アクセス、http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/
9780190277727.013.40 よりダウンロード）.
22) The significance of such approaches for helping us to refrain our understanding of the place of Islam within Asian
Studies is clearly evident in the work of scholars like Eka Sri Mulyani, Noorhaidi Hasan, Euis Nurlaelawati,
Muhammad Ali, Arskal Salim, Moch. Nur Ichwan, Jajat Burhanudin, Rumadi, Yanwar Pribadi, and a host of others
publishing their work in English, as well as in Bahasa Indonesia.
23) Important examples of this can be found in the work of Tudjimah, Azyumardi Azra, Oman Fathurrahman, Ayang
Utriza, Fakhriati, Ali Akbar, and Ismail Alatas.

(Fumiharu Mieno, Kyoto University, fmieno@cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp, Bi Shihong, Yunnan

University, Nualnoi Treerat, Chulalongkorn University, Didi Kwartanada, Nation Building
Foundation, R. Michael Feener, Kyoto University)

34 アジア研究 Vol. 67, No. 1, January 2021

View publication stats