Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe (1719), which tells how a castaway survived on a desert island and returned home after 28 years of solitude, as pedagogically recommended children's literature, the story of early capitalistic entrepreneur or the religious tale of how an impious man embraced the Christian faith, has been rewritten recurrently over 270 years by many authors in various ways. The Malay abridged version of Robinson Crusoe (hereafter abbreviated as MRC) is one part of the long and vast tradition of Robinson stories. This paper aims to examine how MRC was translated, what has been omitted or added, how it differs from Defoe's original text, in an attempt to provide a preliminary sketch on translated literature in colonial Indonesia, a subject that has been relatively neglected in the conventional study on the birth and development of modern literature in Southeast Asia.
MRC was translated from the Dutch text by A. F. Von Dewall (1834-1909), a Javaneseborn German philologist, and first published in Batavia in 1875. It can, therefore, be regarded as one of the earliest translations of European novels in Indonesia. The third edition of MRC appeared in 1882, the seventh came out in 1906, and an unknown Singapore edition was published in 1893. The Batavia and Singapore editions, 94 and 77 pages respectively, are the same except for the orthography. Judging from the book cover MRC seems to have been edited by the colonial government as reading material for students. This abridged edition follows Defoe's fundamental plots and settings, such as the shipwreck, Robinson's solitary life and hardship on a desert island, his adventures, fighting the savages, the master-servant relationship between Robinson and Friday, the escape and return to his homeland. But the style and some details of MRC are quite different from Defoe's text.
One of the most striking differences lies in MRC's narrative style. In contrast to Defoe's text, which is written in the first person, all the happenings, experiences and ideas in MRC are depicted in the third person, or told by the narrator, except for the conversations and monologues. This change of style occurs partly because MRC relies on a Dutch text, which is most likely based on J. H.Campe's German version, Robinson der Jungere (1779) written in the third person style. The more important reason, however, lies in the fact that MRC is written in the form of hikayat, the traditional narrative of the Malay world, which is unfamiliar with the first person style. And interestingly enough, if we eliminate the ‘oral punctuation’ from MRC's hikayat style, there will appear a very modern, or artificial, Malay language compared with colloquial Malay then prevailing in the newspapers and popular novels. Thus MRC is written in a blended form of traditional narrative style and modern Malay.
In its depiction of the character of Malay's Robinson too, MRC has some substantial differences. These occur because the main themes of Defoe's text, such as the philosophy of British middle-class life, inner conflict over the faith in Christ, or pertinent behavior of Robinson as the ideal type of emerging bourgeoisie, are almost totally left out of MRC. Here are mainly stressed the spirit of diligence, self-restraint and invention for surviving in more severe destitution than in Defoe's text.
MRC was most likely recited by school teachers to the class. The story of Robinson Crusoe in Malay, being deprived of the social, cultural and religious background of Defoe's text, and emphasizing pedagogical and ethical meanings, yet maintaining Robinson's supremacy over the island (colony) and Friday (native), was no doubt worthy of being introduced into the colonial society.

View full abstract

The main objective of this paper is to trace land administration in Perak from the late nineteenth century to the present and to clarify its salient features.
Perak is by far the most important area in terms of colonial land administration in the sense that the succeeding land policies in the Peninsula were heavily influenced by intense arguments between two groups of British officers in the area. The first group, led by Swettenham, viewed Perak as basically untouched and gave priority to inviting as many foreign settlers and planters as possible by offering them privileged land tenure, while the other group, led by Maxwell, acknowledged in principle the “customary tenure” of the Malay and took measures to incorporate them into the colonial land system.
The arguments centered upon the lease system, of land assessment revisions, a uniform land system across different regions, and other issues; but the most disputed point was whether to acknowledge “customary tenure” or not. The arguments between the two groups came to a critical stage when the Draft Perak Land Code was proposed in 1893 by Swettenham. Many people were involved in the argument and serious antagonism was observed throughout the debate. Finally, Maxwell was transferred to the Gold Coast as Governor and left Perak in 1894. Swettenham, on the other hand, took the post of Resident-General of the newly formed Federated Malay States [FMS] in 1895 and planned to propose a uniform land law to be enforced in all the states. From 1897 the states in the FMS accordingly enacted land laws, in which both the lease system advocated by Swettenham and the landholding system by summary registration in the Mukim Register abvocated by Maxwell were integrated.
The intention of colonial administrators to stabilize the Malay villages by preserving “customary” rights of peasants was, however, seriously hindered by the peasants' high mobility, which was further intensified by frequent land transfer and the resultant exodus of the villagers after the rubber boom during the 1910s. The Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913, which prohibited land transactions between Malays and non-Malays, suppressed peasant mobility by lowering the land value to almost nil.
Through the enactment of the FMS Land Code of 1926 and the National Land Code of 1965, the land law in the Peninsula has been reformed in the direction of the uniform lease system, though the respective states still maintain the final authority in land matters, and many types of land laws still survive side by side.
Despite the various arguments regarding the proposed land law in the late nineteenth century, there was one thing common to all the participants. This was a unified acknow-ledgment of state land ownership. As David S. Y. Wong has correctly asserted, the idea of state ownership of land was nothing but the product of British administration.
In the pre-colonial Malay Peninsula there were many institutions and customs that defined relationships among people. Slavery, honour and shame, religious notions, and many other types of relationship existed there. Ties to a particular plot of land, however, had never been counted seriously. The colonial land administration, on the other hand, divided the area into millions of plots of land and promoted the idea of land ownership over each of them. The main aim of this move was to shift from labor to land relationships. The land and related laws gradually played a more important role in the colonial administration. It was, therefore, natural to find many political leaders coming out of the ranks of government servants. The possibility of the emergence of intermediaries from among the landed elite is, however, the subject of future study.

View full abstract

Post-Angkor est la période qui suit l'abandon d'Angkor au XV^e siècle et qui va jusqu'à la colonisation du Cambodge par les Français en 1863. Quand on étudie l'histoire du Cambodge, il y a un problème de continuité entre la période angkorienne et post-angkorienne. D. P. Chandler disait que le Cambodge a beaucoup changè entre le XIII^e et le XVI^e siècle. Effectivement, on peut observer des changements dans les domaines suivants: emplacement de la capitale, caractère des documents historiques, religion etc. De plus, le XIV^e siècle même signifie un grand tournant dans l'histoire de l'Asie du Sud-Est.
Les historiens ont ignoré pendant longtemps cette période de “Dark Ages”, puis dans les annees 1970, ceux qui commençaient à étudier l'histoire post-angkorienne se concentraient seulement sur l'éclaircissement des circonstances de l'indépendance du Cambodge par rapport au Siam et au Vietnam. D'autres problèmes, tels que les institutions politiques n'étaient pas étudiés, et aujourd'hui encore, nous connaissons peu l'État postangkorien.
Les inscriptions modernes sont les seuls documents historiques écrits dans la période post-angkorienne. Nous avons aussi les codes post-angkoriens datés du XVII^e siècle, que nous pouvons éventuellement utiliser comme documents historiques à titre de comparaison avec les inscriptions modernes. Dans ces documents, il y a beaucoup de noms khmers avec les titres khmers. Or dans les oeuvres de Sahai et H. G. Quaritch Wales, les titres angkoriens et ceux du Siam ont été classés, et, nous pouvons les comparer avec les titres post-angkoriens. Ainsi, dans notre article, nous avons examiné ces titres et les avons comparés avec ceux d'Angkor.
En premier lieu, les relations commandées par les titres post-angkoriens ont été explicitées. Par leur titre, les Cambodgiens post-angkoriens peuvent se classer en 3 catégories, (1) les hauts dignitaires de 10-6 haupéan, (2) les bas dignitaires de 5-1 haupéan, (3) les gens du peuple (femmes et esclaves compris). I1 peut y avoir des liens de parenté entre les gens des catégories (1) et (3), ou (2) et (3), mais nous n'avons pas pu trouver de relation entre les gens des catégories (1) et (2). I1 y a une grande séparation sociale entre les hauts dignitaires et les bas dignitaires.
Par comparaison avec les titres angkoriens, ceux de post-Angkor n'ont aucun point commun. Du point de vue des titres, l'Etat post-angkorien ne continue pas celui d'Angkor, cependant les titres post-angkoriens ressemblent à ceux d'Ayuthya. Dans cette période les communications sont fréquentes entre le Cambodge et Ayuthya. On peut dire que le Cambodge post-angkorien et Ayuthya forment une même région ce qui favorise des titres communs. Mais nous ne pouvons pas encore déterminer dans lequel des deux royaumes ils ont été créés par manque de documents pour toute la période du XIV^e au XVI^e siècle.

View full abstract

The war ended nearly 50 years ago and yet the truth of the Japanese Occupation years in many parts of Southeast Asia has not been fully known. Opinions on whether it was a “holy war” or “one of aggression” are still divided in Japan. In other words, it is still a very sensitive issue. As a result, academic research on the subject has been restrained to some extent.
The book's reviewer gives high regards to efforts made by the author in ploughing through voluminous historical records and materials when doing the research in an attempt to achieve objectivity. But at the same time, the reviewer also voices her disagreement with some views held by the author in the book. They include:
1. The great extent with which details of activities and policies carried out by the Japanese military government, both the positive and negative ones, and the impact they created are reported in the book. Some of them, which seem to be mere facts and observations, appear unconvincing for lack of sufficient evidence. The author's views on “Tonarigumi” is one example.
2. On the author's view that certain policies carried out under Japan's military rule had brought about some “unexpected contributions”, the reviewer disagrees, pointing to the fact that all policies spelt out then were based on one central national objective, which was to serve Japan's interest in the domination of others during that time. Under such circumstances, therefore, when policies being implemented could not achieve results as desired by the political masters, they should not even be evaluated at all and be viewed as some kind of “contributions”. They were matters of a different nature, and should not be put together on equal footing for elaboration or discussion purposes.
3. On the role of “Senmukan”, those who implemented cultural policies and others who led in agricultural development, the author held some very positive views on them, believing that their “good personal intentions” should not be dismissed all together simply by such term as “invasion”. The reviewer, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the so-called “Senmukan” and the other two groups were all organised groups under the command of the Japanese military government. Thus, even if some of them held very “strong ideas and views on Asianism”, one should not therefore interpret or explain it as their general good feelings towards the people in Southeast Asia.

View full abstract