The Malayan Union [Review] · The Malayan Union. B Jy d. e V . Allen Monograp. Serieh Nos 10. South, - east Asi Studiesa Yal, Universitye 196, (distribute7 by The Cella d Boor k Shop,

96 REVIEWS

N e w Zealand writers of the period, as Pearson reminds us briefly in his book and at m o r e length in his earlier essay, published in the Journal of the Polynesian Society (September 1 9 5 8 ) . But there were a few Pakehas like Danaher and the selfless Comerford who followed Lawson who were prepared to give of themselves for the benefit of a Maor i community; and before long there were some Pakeha writers, like Roderick Finlayson, who could interpret Maoris with a sympathy and understanding that was wholly lacking in H e n r y Lawson. It is fortunate that Bill Pearson is writing in the tradition of Finlayson rather than Lawson.

M. P. K. SORRENSON University of Auckland

The Malayan Union. B y J . de V . Allen. Monograph Series N o . 10, South-east Asia Studies, Y a l e University, 1 9 6 7 (distributed by T h e Cellar Book Shop, 1 8 0 9 0 Wyoming, Detroit, Michigan 4 8 2 2 1 ) . 181 pp. U.S . price: $ 5 . 0 0 .

D R . A L L E N has undoubtedly told a good tale in this monograph, giving body to a hitherto rather bare outline of events. Nevertheless his account fails to satisfy entirely. H e claims that the Malayan Union's importance in Malayan history has been under-rated, but at the same time views it simply as a 'curious' 'incident in British Imperial history'. In practice the latter view predominates to the almost complete exclusion of the former, thus presenting a restricted historical perspective in which cause and effect are largely ignored. T h e tale he tells is a familiar one, both for this reason and because he has used essentially familiar sources — official reports and records, interviews with ex-civil servants and with some Malay leaders. D r . Allen is thus almost entirely dependent upon official analyses of local attitudes and reactions — analyses which, in the opinion of the present reviewer, were often less in the nature of objective assessment than of rationalisations of inherent prejudice or past practice. It is hardly surpris-ing that his account reflects all the inadequacies of official understanding of Malayan, as opposed to M a l a y society. It demonstrates genuine sym-pathy for the Malays, but shows little o r no understanding of or interest in the attitudes and aspirations of the non-Malays.

Dr . Allen asserts, for example, that the Chinese and Indians showed 'absolutely' no 'interest' in the Malayan Union proposals before March-April 1 9 4 6 , whereas in reality both communities showed not so much lack of interest as a lack of enthusiasm. Indeed, their main political organisa-tions ( the Malayan Communist Party , the Malayan Democrat ic Union and the General L a b o u r U n i o n s ) , and their popular press were demanding immediate advance to democratic , representative politics. If the Malayan Union went too far for the Malays (by denying Malay sovereignty and embodying equal citizenship rights for Malays and non-Malays alike) it did not go nearly far enough towards responsible politics to satisfy the non-Malays. Similarly Dr . Allen tendentiously alleges that the far more restrictive citizenship provisions of the subsequent Federation of Malaya constitution were 'generous' to the non-Malays, but almost entirely dis-regards the fact that not one non-Malay political party, trade union, or commercial association was of that opinion, and that between December 1 9 4 6 and October 1 9 4 7 the All -Malayan Council of Joint Action aroused

REVIEWS 97

widespread non-Malay opposition to those provisions. In other words, Dr. Allen's account fails adequately to explore the c o m -

plex constitutional and political implications of the permanently multi-racial society which the British had unwittingly created in the thirties and intended to maintain in the forties. His implicit assumption that the reject-tion of the Malayan Union and the acceptance of the Federation of Malaya righted a grievous wrong and paved the way for progressive constitutional advance is simplistic in the extreme. It ignores the consequent, if perhaps inevitable, failure to integrate the overwhelming mass of the permanently domiciled non-Malay population into a truly multi-racial political system and thus fails to demonstrate any of the relationships between the collapse of the Malayan Union, the outbreak of the communist revolt in 1 9 4 8 , or the subsequent pattern of Malayan constitutional politics.

Granted that Dr . Allen modestly styles himself a student of British imperial history, one may well comment that it is surely not possible to write truly perceptive history, whether it be imperial or national, without research into and a basic understanding of the nature of the society for which politics were formulated and in which events were enacted. T h e problems of creating a potentially independent Malayan nation were far more complex than Dr. Allen would lead us to believe.

M. R. STENSON University of Auckland

THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICS AND HISTORY

Vol. XIV, No. 3

Problems in Australian Foreign Policy, January-June, 1968

Papua-New Guinea and Territory of Papua and New Guinea: In Retrospect, 1945-52

Dr. Albert Hahl official

Sketch of a German colonial

The Changing Content of Domestic Jurisdiction

Local Government in Rural India

The Politics of Federalism: Financial Relations between Tasmania and the Commonwealth, 1901-33

Price: $1.50

December, 1968

HEDLEY BULL

J . K. MURRAY

P . BISKUP

J . M . HOWELL

ILTIJA H . KHAN

R . J . M A Y

Published three times yearly

U N I V E R S I T Y O F Q U E E N S L A N D P R E S S