History of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society
Choy Chee Meh (née Lum), a history teacher and University of Malaya honours student, published this institutional history in 1995, tracing the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society from its founding by colonial administrators in 1877 through its second century of operation. Her central argument is that the Society, though born from the utilitarian exigencies of British imperial administration, has in practice functioned as the region’s most enduring and consequential vehicle for the collection, preservation, and dissemination of scholarly knowledge about Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei (pp. 81, 89).
Summary
The article adopts a thematic rather than chronological structure, dividing its analysis into the Society’s nature and founding motivations, its modus operandi, and—most substantially—its contribution to Malayan historiography as reflected in the Journal. Choy Chee Meh situates the Society’s founding in November 1877 within the context of the British “forward movement” after the Pangkor Engagement of 1874, arguing that economic competition (Singapore’s entrepôt trade being eroded by Hong Kong and Dutch discrimination) and the practical needs of the Residential System of indirect rule created an acute demand for knowledge about the Malay Peninsula, which was then largely terra incognita to Europeans (pp. 87–88). The Inaugural Address by the founder, Archdeacon G.F. Hose, explicitly linked the Society’s work to the interests of “the Planter and the Merchant” and to the needs of “the governing class,” yet Choy Chee Meh insists that in actual operation the Society transcended its imperial origins to become a genuine promoter of scholarship for its own sake (pp. 88–89).
The historiographical core of the article (Chapters III and IV) uses 1950—the founding of the University of Malaya in Singapore—as a dividing line between two distinct eras of Malayan historical writing. The pre-1950 period was dominated by scholar-officials such as W.E. Maxwell, R.J. Wilkinson, and Sir Richard Winstedt, whose state histories and general histories were shaped by the administrative need to justify British intervention and by the prevailing Victorian assumption of Western civilisational superiority. Choy Chee Meh acknowledges the valid modern criticism that these works were “superficial, colourless and pedestrian” and “totally devoid of analysis,” but she defends their value as irreplaceable source compilations, noting that some of the manuscripts they drew upon can no longer be located (pp. 99–101). The post-1950 period, by contrast, witnessed the emergence of professional university-based historians—C.N. Parkinson, I.A. Macgregor, C.D. Cowan, K.G. Tregonning, Wang Gungwu, and Khoo Kay Kim—whose work was characterised by archival research, analytical methodology, and a broadening of thematic scope to encompass social, economic, and cultural history (pp. 105, 120).
Throughout, the argument is grounded in the Society’s own publications: the Annual Reports, the Journals themselves, the Inaugural Address, and the successive sets of Rules. Choy Chee Meh is careful to note that this is a “non-official” history based largely on the Society’s printed output rather than its internal administrative records, and she explicitly disclaims responsibility for any errors or misinterpretations (p. 81).
Key Findings
- The Society was founded on 4 November 1877 at the Raffles Library, Singapore, by a group of colonial administrators including Archdeacon G.F. Hose, W.E. Maxwell, and A.M. Skinner; it received affiliation from the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland on 6 May 1878 (p. 87).
- By 1995 the Society had published 154 Journals, 25 Monographs, 13 Reprints, and 3 Indexes; membership had grown from 150 founder members in 1877 to over 1,000 (p. 86).
- Sir Richard Winstedt contributed 144 articles to the Journal, of which 27 were historical works, making him the most prolific scholar-official historian; H.N. Ridley contributed 95 articles on natural history (pp. 86, 121).
- The Journal’s publication was interrupted by the Japanese Occupation, with no issue appearing between December 1941 (Vol. 19, Part 3) and June 1947 (Vol. 20, Part 1) (p. 90).
- The Society’s Library, which had grown to an unmanageable size by 1923, was discontinued that year due to little use; the map-making project was abandoned in 1916 when the Survey Department produced its own map (pp. 92–93).
- Annual Lectures were first held in 1962, following a gap of over 80 years since the reading of papers at General Meetings effectively ceased after 1881 due to inability to obtain a quorum (pp. 91–92).
Conclusion
Choy Chee Meh’s definitive historical takeaway is that the Society must be judged by its contribution to scholarship rather than by its administrative machinery, funds, or membership size. The Journal, she argues, was the sole vehicle for the publication of historical writing in Malaya until the emergence of specialised academic journals in the 1940s and 1960s, and its wealth of original research—spanning natural history, Malay studies, and Malayan history—remains unsurpassed as a storehouse of information on the region (pp. 81, 120).
Context
- The study draws almost exclusively on the Society’s own printed publications (Annual Reports, Journals, Reprints, Monographs, and Rules) as primary sources, supplemented by a limited range of secondary literature on Malayan historiography; no external archival collections (e.g., the National Archives of Malaysia or the India Office Records) were consulted.
- This is the first dedicated institutional history of the MBRAS, filling a notable gap in the historiography of Southeast Asian learned societies and providing a baseline reference for future studies of the relationship between colonial knowledge-production and post-colonial national historiography.