Our colonial history and us

Polarising history: Red paint was splashed on the statue of Captain Francis Light at Fort Cornwallis in Penang early this month.

OVER the recent months, the world has been struggling with what to do with icons, names and symbols of our history – from the slave trade legacy to the global colonial heritages.

Inevitably, the global discussion has reached our shores too – in an accumulation of various influences from the #BlackLivesMatter campaign, global anti-racism protests to the widespread call to decolonise education and public spaces.

Some believe the moment is here for us to revise mainstream narratives which either ignore or downplay the many problems that stem from colonialism.

In Cambridge University, a decolonisation campaign to expand its curriculum from being dominated by a white, euro-centric lense has gained momentum.

There is also the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, which seeks to remove the veneration of the imperialist Cecil Rhodes.

Of late, other voices have come up to show another side of former British wartime prime minister Winston Churchill and his role in the mistreatment of millions throughout the British Empire. Often hailed as a hero in the West, the perception of Churchill by the Commonwealth, less heard than that of the United Kingdom, is not quite as rose-tinted. The debate in Malaysia has not reached the same levels as those abroad, but it is still significant. Earlier this month, the statue of Sir Francis Light in Penang was vandalised with red paint and the ensuing response has been polarising.

The matter of renaming St Paul’s hill in Melaka is, however, more complicated as the factors in the debate do not just concern colonialism but also represent important ethnic and religious identities of today and their deep roots in the area.

In general, Malaysia’s approach to colonial history is mixed. One on hand, our Sejarah textbooks are very clear about the negative repercussions brought by the “penjajah” (colonials) who imposed rule over us. But on the other hand, we also exalt elements of colonialism – hotels, developments, and cafes often capitalise on colonial heritage in both its themes and designs. Some take a more positive view by representing the olden days an age of “culture and class” while others use it as a form of acknowledgement of our varied history. Regardless, there is no consensus, and the debate is far from settled.

A complicated matter

Colonial history should not be erased, and colonial injustices should not be forgotten, says Penang Heritage Trust vice-president Khoo Salma Nasution.

While history is complex and nuanced, the discourse can be easily oversimplified and hijacked by the politics of the day to exacerbate divisions instead of healing divisions, she warns.

Generally, Khoo is not in favour of changing street and place names, but she clarifies that there are no strict rules on this.

“If we want to change our street names, a strong justification must be given against the old name and for the new name. It should not be due to a politician’s whim or fashion of the day, ” she says, adding that all stakeholders who live and work along the street should be consulted.

While she agrees that instead of removing colonial names and legacies, we can use them as points of discourse to raise better conversations about the darker side of colonialism, Khoo can also understand why some people insist on defacing or taking down statues.

“I hope that people will discuss and find out more before taking drastic action. There should be a public discourse. What is just as important is, what are we doing to preserve the heritage which we want to remember, that we are losing through sheer neglect?”

Heritage activist Jo Chua prefers not only to maintain colonial era names, but to also make it clear that there were previous names associated with the places.

“We can correct mistakes in the recording of history to reflect the facts but it would be sacrilegious to change it to suit the whims and fancy of the moment. It is from the layers of history added on from our local rulers to the various foreign powers which formed our heritage and gave our country its distinct character, ” she says.

Preserving history?

Prof Datuk Dr Teo Kok Seong, a Principal Fellow at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Institute of Ethnic Studies (KITA) is against reviewing or changing the names of our colonial sites.

“This is because they are our “full” history, that we were colonised for a long period of time, ” he says, pointing to the hundreds of cumulative years of colonialism by the Dutch, Portueguese, Japanese and British all the way back from the 16th century.

“For all the effects of colonialism on us as a nation, the good, bad and ugly, we should take it all in our stride, ” he says.

This means, says Teo, that all colonial memories, whether pleasant or otherwise, that have impacted us socially, culturally, economically apart from the political realm, should not be shunned.

Therefore the maintenance of names of colonial sites and the sites themselves should be supported on historical grounds, mainly for their heritage, since they are our “full” history, he says.

“Changing names of colonial places and removing or demolishing colonial sites would definitely defeat the purpose of history, especially the importance of history and historical records, in this case names and sites, ” he says, while adding that keeping relics of colonial heritage is not about glorifying colonial powers.

“For me, it is about us, how we evolved and how (colonial) history develops an awareness about ourselves as a strong, independent nation, ” he says.

Case by case basis

Architect and heritage historian Ahmad Najib Ariffin is of the view that colonial names could, not should, be reviewed and changed according to the merits of each situation.

“It goes without saying that this is a complex, even loaded, question and the answer is not a straight yes or no as it depends so much on context, ” he says.

However, Ahmad Najib believes that there are some universal principles that should be adhered to.

“A prime principle is when a native population who were already residing in a place that was then colonised and had its name change by occupying forces.

“The native communities then retain the right to continue using its original name and even change it back officially, ” he says, giving examples of Myanmar (from Burma) and Mumbai (from Bombay).

“Having said that, there are numerous issues around each, for example what or which ‘original’ name to use, or whose name to use as there could be many current parties involved, each with a different name or variation. That’s another set of complex arguments, ” he says.

Delicate matter: The issue of renaming St Paul’s hill in Melaka is complex

According to Najib, the best manner to preserve history is for all parties to practice mutual respect and fair attitude on the subject of history; from the former “colonial masters” who must respect the sovereign rights of now independent nations, to these nations having to be strong in their current identities and achievements, particularly Malaysia which has done well since independence, and not having to erase everything of the colonial past.

“With this constructive attitude, we can all find a practical balance in respecting the combined pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial histories, ” he says.

What's in a name?

This region of the world in particular still holds on to a colonised, eurocentric history and we have yet to deconstruct that colonial narrative, says Professor Datuk Dr Ahmad Murad Merican of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC - IIUM).

“Colonial powers robbed our land, identity, and even the names of our places, but we should not erase those names completely. Instead, we should re-narrate our history, ” says Ahmad Murad, who is also Penang Malay Heritage and Historical Society (Pewarisan) president.

Ahmad Murad favours the selective renaming of places. His criterion being that places which had a native name, but whose names were replaced by colonial powers, should return to their original names.

“Bear in mind that the issue is not about changing colonial names, but reverting to an earlier name which has been erased, suppressed or hidden, ” he explains, adding that selecting which places ought to be renamed is dependent on the context and sentiment of the people of the time.

Names are not just names, they reflect the interpretation and the representation of the past, and contribute to the national narrative, says Ahmad Murad. And so, there is inherent value and weight to what we choose to call a place of significance.

“In Malaysia many names of places have reverted to an earlier name – Teluk Anson to Teluk Intan, Port Swettenham to Pelabuhan Klang, ” says Ahmad Murad, who believes that places like Georgetown should revert to its former Tanjong Penaga and Butterworth to Bagan Tuan Kechil.

“If the colonists can just easily change a name, what is stopping us from ‘changing’ it back?” he asks.

Local authorities must be careful in distinguishing between colonial and Eurasian names, says Ahmad Murad.

“Eurasian road and place names are local, just like Malaysian Indian and Chinese names. The main issue is colonial European names. And to this we have to trace the person that we are naming in public places, ” he explains.

Ahmad Murad is also against destroying statues of colonial figures.

“Don’t deface them. We should not vandalise like how they vandalised us. They should be moved to more suitable places like museums and renarrate their crimes accordingly. The future must know who they are, ” he says, adding that injustices carried out by colonial figures in Malaysia like the plundering and robbery of our land should be made known alongside the effigies.

“We have to reappropriate and renarrate our past in terms of who Francis Light was, same as Cecil Rhodes or Stamford Raffles. They were not benevolent.”