Q2. John Furnivalls concept of a plural society is an accurate interpretation of the severity of Southeast Asias nation-building efforts. Discuss.

Introduction
According to J.S Furnivall, the plural society is one where there is a medley of peoples Europeans, Chinese, Indian and native. It is in the strictest sense a medley, for they mix but do not combine. Each group holds by its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and ways. As individuals they meet, but only in the market-place, in buying and selling. 1 He goes onto explain that there are two prominent aspects in a plural society, namely a political and an economic one. For politics in plural societies, one should look out for the following three characteristics: 1. The society as a whole comprises separate racial sections 2. Each section is an aggregate of individuals rather than a corporate or organic whole. 3. And as individuals their social life is incomplete. 2 With this in mind, we are looking for a society that set rules based solely along ethnic lines where permanent ethnic communities acting cohesively on nearly all political issues determine a plural society and distinguish it from a culturally heterogeneous, nonplural society.3 As for the economical aspect of the concept, it must be one where everyone wins. Here, goods sold must be quality however when sold, cannot cost too much as the idea is allow everyone to live a comfortable life. Thus, it is expected that the society will constantly be involved in creating the best possible produce however, not be able to live a comfortable live as all they earn is the bare minimum to survive. With the aspects clarified we now need to answer the question on whether the concept of plural society is an accurate interpretation of the severity nation building efforts of Southeast Asian countries. To answer this, Malaysias political and economical histories will be the focus to determine an answer to the question

History of Malaysia
To best understand the paradigm of plural society in Malaysia and how it truly began to affect the countrys progress, we begin from the time the British colonised Malaysia, known at that period as Malaya. The British came in the 19th century and formed an Anglo-Dutch agreement with the Dutch for Melaka thus controlling the Straits Settlements, which includes Penang and Singapore. Ruling classes in Perak, Selangor and Negara Sembilan were feuding over vast tin deposits and eventually, the British intervened and the disputes were settled via the signing of the Pangkor Treaty in1874.

John S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: a Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), pp. 304 2 John S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: a Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), pp. 306 3 Alvin Rabushka and Kenneth A. Shesle, Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability (Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972), pp. 12, http://www.stanford.edu/~rabushka/politics%20in%20plural%20societies.pdf (accessed 9 Jul 2011)

The condition of this treaty was that the Sultan would still be recognised and that he should accept a British Resident in his state. The advice of the Resident must be asked and acted upon on all questions other than those touching on Malay religion and custom.4 This gave the British not just a say but control over the financial and administrative matters for these states. This was the treaty that paved the way to the British gaining control of the whole of Malaya. Later in 1909, Thailand would relinquish imperial claims to the state of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Terengganu and the British would proceed to request for British Residents in all these states. Finally in 1914, Britain had control of current day West Malaysia as well as Singapore. The British took advantage of Singapores geographical location and Malayas vast amount of resources, such as tin and rubber, to make profit, not for the locals but for themselves. By performing economically well, immigrants from India and China began to flock in huge numbers. Divisions between Malays, Chinese and Indians, already culturally profound, were deepened by British perceptions and policies.5 They began to divide labour along ethnic lines. The Indians were made to tend to rubber plantations, the Chinese were involved in trade and finance, the upper class of Malays were involved in the branch of the government that handled the Malays and the ordinary Malays were fishermen or rice farmers. Even education for each race was done separately in their own languages. This meant that there were no grounds on which the races would integrate or socialize. With the swell in immigration by the Chinese and the British doing nothing about it, the Malays were ceasing to be a majority. Malaya was further separated physically and culturally during the Japanese Occupation. The Malays were treated as equals and given opportunity in the administration of Malaya. The Chinese considered war enemies and thus suffered greatly during this period. The Indians attention was focussed on their homeland, India and the fight there to drive the British out. It was also during this period that the four states relinquished by Thailand were returned back to the imperial kingdom of Thailand. After the Occupation, the British came back trying to pick up the pieces from before. They faced a revolution attempted by the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) called the Emergency where the British proposed self government for Malaya. Parties that were formed at that time were only based on communal segregation and they were the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and Malayan Indian Congress (MIC). The idea that the country was going to be governed by either of these parties created tensions throughout the country. Thankfully, the Alliance was created between the three parties and it took part in the 1952 elections. The British were confident that the party was capable of handling the country and by 1957, Malaya got its independence and in 1963, by adding Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore, Malaysia was born. Singapore entered Malaysia with many constitutional, political and administrative issues left unresolved. 6 These issues could not be settled and thus, it led to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965.

Asean Focus Group edited by Peter Church, Focus on Southeast Asia: A country by country introduction (Heinemann Asia Singapore 1995), pp. 73 Asean Focus Group edited by Peter Church, Focus on Southeast Asia: A country by country introduction (Heinemann Asia Singapore 1995), pp. 74 6 Asean Focus Group edited by Peter Church, Focus on Southeast Asia: A country by country introduction (Heinemann Asia Singapore 1995), pp. 78
5

The 1969 elections came and the opposition parties began to fight for seats in the parliament. Many of their arguments were based on racial rights and privileges. The Democratic Alliance Party won seats in the parliament and commemorated with a victory march which led to the racial riots of 1969. This was the beginning racial riots to happen in the following years. With the discontent between races, the Malaysia government create the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1971. This was to eradicate poverty in Malaysia. Problem with that was that most of the Bumiputera, or people of the land who were mostly Malays, would be the ones receiving the most of the assistance thus seeming as though the government were in favour of the Malays. Mahatir came to power in 1981 and would be the force that brought about stability in a time where racial tensions were at their highest. His methods by which he adopted, on the other hand, were questionable. Many would oppose him, even those within his party however, the results spoke for themselves as today, Malaysia, besides Singapore, is the most successful of Southeast Asian countries in terms of socio-economic development.7

Analysing the Politics and Economy of Malaysia and their dependence on the concept of plural society.
R. S. Milne, a Malaysian specialist, confidently claims: More than anything else, the racial composition of Malaysia is the key to understanding the whole picture. It dictates the pattern of the economy, has helped to shape the constitution, and has influenced the democratic process and the party system.8 We are going to take a phase by phase analysis of the Malaysias history as above and consider how much plural society is actually a part of Malaysias political and economical environments During the phase of colonisation, trade of tin and rubber from Malaysian plantations was the main form of revenue for Malaysia. For this to happen, the people in Malaysia were segregated along ethnic lines to perform the necessary tasks to allow for growth of the economy. This is where the perfect example of Furnivalls concept is shown as the agricultural Indian or Malay farmer would go to market place to sell their goods to the Chinese merchants and then proceed go back to their own communities. Basically, that sums up the amount of socializing done between the races. The economy continues to flourish throughout this period; however this is only to the advantage of the British. They continue to exploit it as for them, there is no purpose in changing anything as what they currently conceived is working perfectly. The main focus for this analysis will be on post Japanese Occupation phase where we see Malaysia attempting some form of nationalism. As mentioned, there was an effort to create multi ethnic political parties, however these parties were insignificant or not organized enough to stand for election. This is probably due to the fact that social ties were not formed in the beginning due to lack of social cohesion from the start. Political parties formed, such as UMNO, MCA and MIC were racially segregated, thus furthering the possibilities of races mixing and sharing opinions and views. They had to resort to combining together in order to be able to put up a front that seemed as though all races in Malaysia were represented and thus, a united government will be created which obviously was not the case. The fact that in the 1969 elections, racial issues were still being raised showed that
7 Suan-Pow Yeoh and Charles Hirschman, Urbanization And Urban Growth During Colonial Rule And Independence In Peninsular Malaysia (Review of Indonesian and Malayan Affairs Vol 14, No. 1, 1980), pp. 1, http://faculty.washington.edu/charles/pubs/1980UrbanizationandUrbanGrowthDuringColonialRuleandIndependence.pdf (accessed 9 Jul 2011) 8 Government and Politics in Malaysia (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967), p. 3.

Malaysia still had a long way to go before having a nation which all races could live together cohesively. The NEP placed in 1971 did help a great deal in lowering the poverty rate in Malaysia, nevertheless, the policy seemed to only aid the Malay Bumiputera who were left behind due to the framework of communities the British created. This is an obvious sign that interpretation of plural societies was present in the 20th century. The introduction of Dr.Mahatir was a positive one for the country; however, there was a constant dilemma of appealing to all races to keep them knitted. He knew that in order for the country to proper, it first had to unite but his actions in detaining key politicians using the Internal Security Act (ISA) did not fare well with the people and thus control over citizens in Kelantan and Terengganu fell to the opposition. In todays globalized day and age, the segregation is not as bad as it used to be. Malaysias effort in rallying races to forge together during international sporting events and such have made their mark and will continue to do so. The economy is looking well and with the country past it days of social unrest, there is no doubt that the country will continue to prosper.9

Conclusion: What is the extent of severity caused by plural society on Malaysia and is this the same for the rest of Southeast Asia?
It is obvious that the plural society concept does play relevance even after colonial rule. Though maybe not exactly as describe by Furnivall but to a large extent it was evident in the way Malaysia was governed and the way it progressed. It is obvious just by looking at its political structure and how ethically separate it is. The country may look now as though it is calm but it is because of the governments ability to meet the separate demands of each ethnic group that hinters any chance for social unrest. What about the rest of Southeast Asia? Though it may not seem like it in other countries, Furnivalls main expectation still applies to the region. His ideology of having similar economic interests but different social demands between communities is something we see on a day to day basis in every country in Southeast Asia.10 Though the world has globalized and the new generation is more aware of needs of other races, the government is still required to settle any differences between them. It still and will forever be up to them to resolve any conflict as it is this social unrest that could ultimately cause decades of nation building to go to ashes. The concept is obviously an accurate interpretation of the difficulty that Southeast Asia faces everyday to keep our region from falling behind.

Zawawi Ibrahim, Globalization and National Identity: Managing Ethnicity and Cultural pluralism in Malaysia (

Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies, 2004) pp. 135 Alvin Rabushka and Kenneth A. Shesle, Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability (Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972), pp. 15, http://www.stanford.edu/~rabushka/politics%20in%20plural%20societies.pdf (accessed 9 Jul 2011)
10