|
To trade is human. Like the ability to communicate
abstract ideas, trade is one of those activities that differentiates
Homo sapiens from the rest of the animal world. And trade is more
than just a mere exchange of surplus; its social and political impact is
profound binding both families, tribes and nation-states into intricate
webs of human intercourse. These ever widening circles of trade
interaction encompass the world within a vast network of patronage,
obligation and interdependency.
It is not possible to separate economics from its social and
political consequences. Throughout history trade has been an
important driving force, impacting upon societies - for better and for
worse - throughout the entire world. Perhaps more than any other
region on Earth, Southeast Asia has felt the driving force of economics
transform its social and political structures, absorbing as it has
strong cultural impacts from external trade powers starting with India
and China, the Middle East, Europe, the United States and Japan.
As local peoples enter into the wider circles of contact they must
inevitably make adjustments to their own worldviews.[1]
Traditionally, Southeast Asian cultures emphasise the unity or
synthesis of the social, economic, political, and religious
spheres. Such an all-encompassing lens is an impractical
analytical tool, so it is necessary to attempt to use only one of these
spheres without losing sight or consciousness of the other spheres and
their close interconnectedness. Today, when we speak of 'the
world', we more often than not speak using the vocabulary of
economics. Until recently the average Southeast Asian would think
of 'the world' in purely religious or mystical terms.[2]
The economic history of Southeast Asian can be roughly divided
into seven phases: the early, pre-empire period; the period of the great
maritime trading states; the period of the European advance; the period
1870-1940; the post-independence period; the 'economic miracle'; and the
contemporary crisis situation. In this essay I shall briefly
discuss the period up until 1870. Trade in this region till this
time could be said to have been dominated by Island Southeast Asia, so
apart from general observations of Southeast Asian trade, I shall be
concentrating on the archipelago.
Early economic activity
Economic activity in Southeast Asia up until the Second World
War was largely characterised by subsistence modes of production, with
rice overwhelmingly dominating the agricultural landscape. Even up
to the 18th century all regions of Southeast Asia were still dominated
with traditional agricultural patterns of existence, with a complete
absence of modern industry.[3]
As a general rule, swidden agriculture was practised in the
highland areas of mainland Southeast Asia and in the dryer regions of
the eastern Indonesian archipelago.[4] Slash and burn agriculture
encourages a semi-nomadic mode of existence, as the cleared forest area
would retain its fertility for no more than a few years.[5]
In the more populous plains or valley regions wet rice
production was practised.[6]
In contrast to swidden, wet rice agriculture required a high
degree of technological, social and political organisation. The
elaborate irrigation schemes and hill terraces required a level of
co-operation beyond the capacity of the single-family group, to include
an entire clan or village or group of villages. Supplementing the
basic diet of rice, peasants grew fruit and vegetables, and raised
chickens, ducks, pigs, goats, and in some cases freshwater fish.
To a larger extent, the traditional Southeast Asian village was
economically self-sufficient.[7]
Beyond subsistence, agricultural surplus played an important
part in the life of traditional Southeast Asia, as communal storage for
lean years, as tribute to rulers and suzerains, and as goods to be used
as exchange with the surpluses of neighbours. These modes of
exchange are pre-capitalist in their nature, as the surpluses produced
were often incidental, over and above that required for survival of the
individual peasant family or village.
As villages became larger specialist artisans could be
supported, often working as a sideline to their main agricultural
activity. In some cases entire villages would be given over to one
particular trade. Agricultural surpluses could be thus exchanged
for commodities such as salt, pottery, paper, and cloth.[8]
The Trading States
The appearance of Chinese ships is considered an index of the
economic and political history of maritime Southeast Asia.[9] Beginning at around the 7th
century the trading 'state' of Srivijaya began its emergence. It
covered both sides of the strategic Straits of Malacca along the coasts
of the Malayan Peninsula and the island of Sumatra.[10] Srivijaya's role or activity
could have been more that of a toll-keeper, rather than trader,
controlling as it did the important trade between the Middle East, India
and China through its control of the Straits. As a consequence of
geography Srivijaya became a major Asian emporium of its time.[11] Indeed, Srivijaya
was the forerunner of later maritime powers that gained their wealth
through their control of the sea routes.[12]
The trading ports of Srivijaya started to decline in importance
the 11th and 12th centuries, ultimately to fade away in the 14th century
when another Straits empire emerged to take its place. The
Sultanate of Malacca rose to prominence as a major trading entrepot in
the 15th century. It is claimed that Malacca was one of the major
world trading ports of its time and considered richer than London.[13] Unlike Srivijaya,
Malacca was a kingdom professing and propagating Islam, and its
influence was felt throughout island Southeast Asia reaching as far
north as the modern Philippines.
Malacca was much more than a just a tollgate; it was an active
trading city-state. Malacca's influence extended throughout the
region, it being the centre of a vast intra-island trading network into
which the wealth of the region was directed and concentrated; Indian
cloth, rice and teak ships from Burma, pepper and tin from Sumatra and
the Malayan Peninsula, and nutmeg and cloves from the Moloccas.[14]
Whilst Srivijaya and Malacca waned as trading powers, their
influence has carried on to the present day in the form of a trading
language, Malay, that spread throughout the coastal regions of island
Southeast Asia, and of course became the basis of the modern national
languages of Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore.[15] Malay constituted the
commercial lingua franca of the archipelago, and thus, along with Islam,
must be considered major factors that tended to unify the diverse
cultures of the island worlds,[16] at least along the coasts.
Malacca's power, both commercial and political, was soon
weakened upon the arrival of the first Europeans, the Portuguese, who
captured the town in 1511. Thus started a long period of decline
for the sultanate.
European Influence
European expansion into Southeast Asia was slow and haphazard.[17] It was the lure of
spices - in particular cloves, nutmeg and pepper - and the desire to cut
out the middlemen of the Middle East, which first drew European
privateers into the region. Thus the single most important factor
bringing them to Southeast Asia was the prospect of becoming involved in
an existing pattern of trade[18] rather than establishing new patterns.
The nature of European impact was highly varied throughout the
region, and the force of this impact was very uneven.[19] In fact, it was centuries
before the full force of colonialism touched the everyday life of the
peasant, in particular in the inland areas. For some time
Europeans were just another nationality entering the markets of the
region.
However the Europeans came with perspectives of conquest and
monopoly rather than a purely trade perspective, and were able to back
this up with superior military technology and organisation whenever they
lacked in business acumen or trade goods. Moreover, because of
these perspectives, the European colonials unwittingly tended to destroy
the objects of their conquest. The Portuguese take-over of Malacca
signalled the beginning of a long period of decline for this
city-state. The Portuguese fundamentally misunderstood the nature
of the trade of which Malacca was the centre, seeking to impose monopoly
domination over the spice trade. They succeeded merely in forcing
many regional traders to other ports, in particular Johor. The
Portuguese attempted to control a string of strategic ports stretching
from Malacca to Maluku, rarely penetrating the interiors and never
establishing plantations or industry.
The Portuguese were soon supplanted by the Dutch as the main
European presence in the Island trade region. After the seizure of
Ambon in the Moloccas in 1605 and Banda Island in 1623, the Dutch
secured the trade monopoly of the Spice Islands. A policy of the
ruthless exploitation by 'divide and rule' tactics was carried
out. Indigenous inter-island trade, like that between Makassar,
Aceh, Mataram and Banten, as well as overseas trade, was gradually
paralysed.
To reinforce their spice monopoly in Molloccas, the Dutch
undertook their notorious Hongi expeditions, burning down the clove
gardens islanders in an effort to eliminate the overproduction which
brought down the prices of cloves on the European markets.[20] For a period the
Dutch succeeded in their aims to gain a monopoly over the Southeast
Asian spice trade. In doing so they also began a long process of
peasant impoverishment within the archipelago.[21]
Close
The general European colonial pattern of divorcing producers
from their traditional markets recurs throughout Southeast Asia.
Without exception, colonial domination shamelessly subsumed the needs of
the dominated towards the needs of the colonial power. Once
powerful trading cultures within Island Southeast Asia in particular,
with it's strong regional networks, were gradually crushed under the
weight of colonial influence, although local factors also came into
play. The Mataram wars against the Islamic ports of the north
coast of Java in the early years of the 1600's also played a significant
part in the decline of this trading culture, and 'condemned the
once-flourishing Javanese merchant class to centuries of obscurity in
the backwaters of Javanese life.'[22]
The social impact of trade has indeed been profound for
Southeast Asia, arguably more than in any other region on Earth.
However, up until the late 1900's, and perhaps even beyond in many
cases, it needs to be remembered that the vast majority of people in the
region remained virtually untouched by the influence of trade. For
the most part, the influence of international trade and its attendant
imperialism was limited to the coastal ports and adjoining
regions. Peasant life in the main continued as it always had,
oblivious and uncaring for the world outside the confines of the
village.
Notes
Stange, P (1995) Ancestral Voices in Southeast Asia, Murdoch University, Perth: 99
Stange: 88
Osborne, M (1990) Southeast Asia: an illustrated introductory history, 5th ed., Allen & Unwin, North Sydney: 60
Burling, R (1965) 'Hills and Plains' in Hills, Farms and Padi Fields: Life in Mainland Southeast Asia, Prentice Hall, New Jersey: 4
Osborne: 55
Burling: 4
Steinberg, D J (ed.) (1987) 'Introduction' from In Search of Southeast Asia: A Modern History (revised edition), Allen & Unwin, Sydney: 12
Steinberg: 14
Wolters, O W (1982) 'Historical Patterns in Intra-Regional Relations' from History, Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspective, Singapore: 23
Osborne: 20
The historical and archaeological record for Srivijaya is weak and partly speculative. This is my modest contribution to such speculation. :)
Osborne: 84
Steinberg: 57
Steinberg: 57
Albiet, most Singaporeans are unaware that their national language is Malay, and in the main display disdain for it.
Language is not culture-neutral of course; words convey meanings beyond the purely lexical, containing assumptions about the nature of the world and of the worldview of the particular language user.
Osborne: 76
Osborne: 84
Osborne: 62
Indonesia 1995: An Official Handbook, quoted at http://www.indonesianet.com/hilight/hiancien.htm by IndonesiaNet Inc 1996
Osborne: 85
Steinberg: 84
|