CO885-(11-12) — Page 595

515

:

"British The pamphlet itself is not free from mistakes. On page 9 it states: intervention in the affairs of the Malay Peninsula began in Perak after the Perak War of 1874 "; and in the same paragraph the writer says the Treaty of Pangkor was

"War. entered into after the

As a matter of fact, the Treaty of Pangkor was made on 20th January, 1874, and immediately afterwards Mr. J. W. W. Birch was appointed British Resident of Perak. He was assassinated nearly two years later, on 2nd November, 1875, and, as a result, there followed the Perak Military Expedition and the deportation of the Sultan and two Chiefs. The mistake is not material to the argument, and is only pointed out for the sake of historical accuracy.

On page 15, Mr. Braddell quotes Sir Laurence Guillemard as having written of the late Governor, Sir John Anderson: "he realized also that Federation had That entirely altered the position of the Residents and the High Commissioner." was possible, because there was no High Commissioner until after the Treaty of Federation; but the mistake is not Mr. Braddell's. On page 13, the pamphlet says "under the advice of a Resident- that I had proposed the Federation of our States General reporting direct to Downing Street.' My proposal was that the Resident- General should be in direct correspondence with the Governor.

""

The Sultan of Johore.

Beferring to the case of Trengganu on pages 27 and 28, Mr. Braddell says, quite rightly, that I was one of the Governors who had maintained stoutly the independence of Trengganu against the rather nebulous pretensions of Siam. He might have added that in that view I only followed my illustrious predecessor, Sir Stamford Raffles, and that there are sound reasons for holding that opinion.

In any case, successive Sultans of Trengganu had no doubts on the subject, and did not hesitate to assert their claim. I think it would be difficult to prove that Siam ever exerted any authority in Trengganu, or attempted to interfere in the administra- tion of the State. The rather ludicrous Agreement of April, 1910, quoted by Mr. Braddell, may have been an attempt to put into the document an assertion of the Sultan's claim to independence.

Mr. Braddell is unquestionably right to make the point he does of the difference between Johore and all the other States. The Maharajah Abubakar as he was styled before he became the "Sultan of the State and Territory of Johore "-had been a very close friend of the Governors of the Colony, and of many of its principal citizens, for years before the names of the Rulers of the other Malay States were known in Singapore. His Highness had house in Singapore which he occupied frequently, and where he entertained generously, and the development of Johore, so far as it then went, was due mainly to the enterprise and money of the Singapore Chinese and to the advice of European friends of the Ruler. The present Sultan, who has travelled extensively, is a Ruler of strong character and great energy, who has followed in his father's footsteps and is proud of the traditions which have been established in Johore for so many years.

A Fantastic Description.

If there were any object in doing so here, it would be easy to show that there are great differences in all the States, not only between those inside the Federation, and those who remain outside, but between individual States in both categories. It is well, however, to remember that when the four States decided to federate in 1895, the only other State which could have joined them was Johore, where the conditions had never been such as those which practically compelled the interference of Great Britain to restore order in what was, in 1874, a state of general misrule and danger to the

peace of the Colony.

"this

On page 15, Mr. Braddell referring to the Treaty of Federation, writes: document does not provide for federation at all; it provides for unification or amal- gamation, as many prefer to call it." I am afraid I do not agree with the writer and the "

many "in this statement. It depends on one's conception of the meaning "Federation "the act of uniting in a of federation. The dictionary defines league," while it explains "Federal and "founded upon mutual agreement; a union or government in which several States, while independent in home affairs, combine for national or general purposes.'

**

40

"

as

"}

means

That seems a correct definition of what was intended by the federation of the

amalgamation

"the blending four Malay States. The dictionary says that

That would be of different things-a homogeneous union of diverse elements.' fantastic as a description of the union of States for political and administrative purposes.

[11

A Vital Point.

This is a

When Mr. Braddell leaves—as he does sometimes--the attractive field of legal technicalities to deal with politics and administration I cannot pretend to agree with his conclusions, or with the line of policy which he thinks they indicate. For instance, speaking of the Treaty of Federation, he says: its inevitable result was to bring about a rule of the Federated Malay States by the High Commissioner." vital point in the administrative question, and I trust Mr. Braddell will forgive me for suggesting that he has drawn a wrong conclusion from faulty premises. May I, as the person whose business it was to draft the form of treaty and to take it to each of the signatories, to explain its meaning and to get their signatures, say that the intention was not what Mr. Braddell supposes.

The intention was to secure, as far as possible, identity and continuity of treatment by the British Residents in four different States, instead of each Resident acting according to his lights, without reference to--and sometimes in opposition to-prede- cessors in office or to his fellow Residents. The Residential system had been then in operation for twenty years; the fact that the Resident's advice had to be followed in all matters other than those of religion and ancient custom meant that he controlled all services within the State, and the fact was recognized.

After 20 years it was useless to pretend he was only the Sultan's adviser; though he did actually consult the Sultan on all important questions, and if the Ruler had been questioned he would, I believe, have supported the Resident on every point. In order to secure uniformity in laws, and regulations, and practice of departments of Government, it was necessary to have, in the States, a senior officer to control the Residents, and it was necessary that he also should have authority to give advice which must be followed. Hence the Resident-General who, while he secured uni- formity, kept in closest touch with the Rulers, their Residents and the Governor; thereby saving the Governor and the Colonial Secretary an immense amount of work dealing with places and subjects of which they personally might know but little.

Residents' Diminished Authority.

The position of the Residents was changed, and they accepted loyally their diminished authority for the general good; but the position of the Rulers was only changed in that the Federation added to their importance, and they had at hand a Resident-General with large authority, who was in constant touch with all of them. Moreover, as a Federation, there became available large funds for great works- roads, railways, telegraphs, waterworks, irrigation-wherever they were wanted, and the Federation had means to pay for them and to help struggling States like Pahang and Negri Sembilan.

I agree with all-or nearly all-the pamphlet says about how the High Commissioner became President of the Federal Council and Chief Executive Officer in the Federation; but there is no word in the Treaty of Federation to show that this was ever antici- pated and, for at any rate ten years, nothing of the kind was attempted.

The Malay Rulers agreed to follow the advice given by the Residents and by the Resident-General, but no such promise was made in the case of the Governor or High Commissioner, and it must be presumed, and was so intended; that His Excellency would issue his instructions to the Resident-General and through him to the Rulers' appointed Advisers.

Mr. Braddell draws attention to the institution of a Federal Council and its rather curious constitution, which was afterwards changed in some important par- ticular. No Council of the kind was suggested in the fourteen years between 1895 and 1909 and, though I cannot speak for anything after 1903, the reason why, up to then, there was no Federal Council was because the difficulties were realized, and because meetings of Rulers and Residents and Chiefs were held at intervals to bring the leading people together to discuss matters of mutual interest. The decisions then come to were adopted by the several State Councils and issued in the form of Enact- ments and Regulations under the authority of each Ruler.

Definition Wanted.

There is one question raised on page 35 of the pamphlet which I do not under- stand. It is the gift " of the express right of direct correspondence between a Malay Ruler and the protecting Power-presumably the King or the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Has anyone ever questioned the inherent right of a Malay Ruler to address the Sovereign or the Secretary of State should he desire to do so? The last words of the pamphlet are these: "It is, however, not so likely that they

reti

PFCORD OFFICE

Reference:→

INC.O.882/12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BF REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO|