{

\

j

THRONES, CLAIMANTS, RULERS AND RULES':

THE PROBLEM OF SUCCESSION IN THE MALAY SULTANATES

by

KOBKUA SUWANNATHAT·PIAN

The Sejarah MelayulMalay Annals has clearly stated that the Malay polity was born of the union of the sacred line of kings with an indigenous people. The three beautiful sons of Raja Chulan of the line of Iskandar Zul-karnain, Alexander the Great of Macedonia, appeared one day atop Bukit Si-Guntang and turned the padi grain into gold and silver as a sign of their blessed sovereignty/daulat. The youngest of the three princes was made king of Palembang by the then Palembang chief Demang Lebar Daun who promptly abdicated in the prince's favour and accepted the position of chief minister. According to the Sejaraii Melayu, this Raja who was given the title of Sed Tri Buana finally married Wan Sendari, the daughter of his chief minister and a most beautiful maiden who, as it turned out, was also immune to the queer disease which had stricken all other maidens upon being possessed by the Raja. Demang Lebar Daun only consented to the marriage on the condition that a covenant be made between Seri Tri Buana and his descendants 'and the Malay subjects in perpetuity, whereby the ruler agreed never to humiliate his subjects and, in return, the subjects never to commit treason against their ruler, "even if my descendants [Seri Tri Buana's] oppress them or behave evilly" I

The claim of the House of Palembang or the Palernbang-Melaka dynasty to the rajaship of the Malays was based on its perfect genealogy which claimed as its founder the most favoured monarch, Iskandar Zul-karnain, and the unbroken transmission of the royal blessed and sovereign power, the daulat, making the Palembang- Melaka dynastic ruler "far above the common people and thus worthy of their veneration'V This royal criterion to rule was only broken by the regicide of Sultan Mahmud in 1699, after which a new ideological and political principle was needed to explain the legitimacy of the ruler and the institution of kingship. The end of the illustrious origin of the ruler meant in the practical term the decline of the personal power and prestige of the ruler. The Bendahara rulers who succeeded the Palembang-Melaka kings and ascended the throne with the shadow of the sin of derhaka and regicide upon them, could never.expect to command the same reverence and loyalty from their subjects. The event of 1718 when the raja's traditionally personal retainees, the orang laut, deserted Sultan Abdul Jalil and joined force with Raja Kechil of Siak, the new claimant of the Melaka-Johor throne, serves as a most vivid example of the decline of the personal power and prestige of the ruler. The development of Malay kingship since 1699 on the whole confirmed the fa;:t that the royal power of the ruler no longer rooted in his impeccable pedigree and his personal sacredness but rather on his personal ability-military as well as moral

I C.C. Brown, tr., Sejarah Melayu 'Malay Annals'; Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press, [OUP1, 1970, pp.13-16.

2 L. Andaya, in Reid and L. Castles. eds., Pre-colonial State Systems ill Southeast Asia, MBRAS monograph no.6, 1975, p.9

l

-

JMBRAS VOL. 66

prestige-and his economic wealth. The decline of the real power of the Johor-RiauLingga rulers vis-a-vis that of the Yam Tuan Muda was the result of the faIlure of the Bendahara rulers to exert their authority both on the administration as well as the economic activities of the kingdom.' The decline of the royal power in Rhiau-Lingga greatly affected the institution of kingship throughout the peninsula, particularly among states which had always emulated the Melaka-Johor rajaship in their political ideology and administrative structure. In sum, in place of the declining personal, sacral, and divinely-blessed nature of kingship, emerged a gradual emphasis on the personal ability of the particular ruler. The rulers of the eighteenth century, weak and strong alike, found it expedient to seek military alliance that would strengthen their royal dignity and domestic power. Only the strong-charactered ruler could be certain of his power and authority, relying mainly on his own achievements and his claim to superior religious

"( and moral attainments. Good examples of the new generations of rulers were Sultan Iskandar Zul-karnain of Perak (1752- 1765), Sultan Mansur Shah of Trengganu (1740- 1793), and Yam Tuan Muda Kamboja and Haji of Riau.4

The arrival and the setting-up of the colonial rule on the Malay Peninsula to a.large degree affected the nature of Malay kingship. It has been stated that by the nineteenth century, the Malay rulers particularly those of the "federated state" on the west coast no longer played an active role in the administration of the state, yet the institution of rajas hip was preserved and nurtured as one of the main pillars of the Malay state. The colonial authorities took pains to present the facade of the rulers as the supreme authority within their individual states. Because the colonial rule in Malaya. except in the Crown colonies, was an "indirect" one, it was imperative that the ruler had to be pliant to the "advices" of the Resident and the Governor-General and created no difficulty to the colonial authorities. This in essence meant the interference of the colonial masters in the question of who should ascend the throne of individual Malay states under their protection and guidance. Thus the power and prestige of the Malay ruler suffered a further decline. In general, they became in reality but the shadow of their illustrious ancestors allowing themselves to be guided, cajoled and forced to do the biddings of the colonial office. Those who revealed a hostile attitude towards the colonial authorities would soon be out of favour with the court and often lost their right to succeed to the throne. Though their position vis-a-vis their Malay subjects remained more or less unchanged by this political development of the colonial period, it was the rulers" weakness and subservience to the colonial masters that eventually eroded the concept of reverence and loyalty to the ruler. The Malayan Union episode serves as an illustration of the loss of the royal socio-political credibility among the Malay subjects.

Amidst these socio-political atmosphere, the question of succession should and in fact must be examined within this Malay historical context. Who deserved to be the ruler? What were the rules and practices of selecting a successor? Who had the last say

3 Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, Thai-Malay Relations, Traditional lntra-regional Relations from the Seventeentb to the Early Twentieth Centuries, Singapore, OUP, 1988, pp.48-50.

4 Raja Ali Haji Ahmad, tr, V. Matheson & B.W. Andaya, The Precious GiftlTuh/at al-Nafis, Kuala Lumpur, OUP. 1982. pp.160-2, is a good example in support of the new concept of kingship. See also Raja Chulan, Misa MelaYII. Kuala Lumpur, Pustaka Antara, 1962.

2

..

PART 2, 1993

in this important matter if ever arose a conflict with and/or challenge to the occupant of the throne? It appears clear at this stage that the succession to the Malay throne had not been a simple, straight forward affair even during the Palembang-Melaka time when the main criteria of any claimant to the throne then was basically based on his impeccable genealogy.

The Rules of Succession That never were

Perhaps a most positive way to begin the study of the rules of succession to the Malay sultanate is to identify what actually was not the rules or general practices. Since the appearance of Sang Utama/Seri Tri Buana and his brothers at the summit of Bukit SiGuntang, the Malay traditional selection of the ruler or his successor was never based on the rule of primogeniture or the absolute right of the first-born son to succeed. Seri Tri Buana himself was the youngest of the three brothers who appeared on the Bukit SiGuntang. Whatinfluenced Demang Lebar Daun, then the ruler of Andelas or Palembang to abdicate in the favour of this young prince was the latter's impeccable lineage. It was obvious that Sang Utama was blessed by the Almighty with the daulat to rule over the indigenous and they willingly submitted to his claim and authority. The Sejarah Melayu, both the Raffles M.S. 18 and the Shellabear versions, records no practice of the primogeniture. principle. Conversely, the Sejaran Melayu and other evidence amply reveal the· opposite. During the Palembang-Melaka period -(c. 1402-1699), for example, there were practically as many non first-born sons ascending the throne as those firstborn ones. Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah (the 7th. ruler of Melaka) was chosen as the successor to his f~ther Sultan Mansur Shah in preference to other sons who were more senior to him including Raja Mohammad, the grandson of the former Raja of Pahang.P Sultan Mahmud, the eighth -ruler of Melaka, was also chosen to succeed his father Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah I, though he was not the first-born and his mother was but a sister of the powerful Sed Nara Diraja Tun TahIT. Mahmud ascended to the throne in the face of the opposition of the supporters of his elder brother Sultan Menawar of Kampar. The same right to succeed went to Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah II when he was chosen by his father Sultan Mahmud. His two elder brothers were bypassed: Raja Alunad was in fact killed by Sultan Mahmud while Raja Muzaffar was demoted, driven to Klang and eventually became the firstrulerof Perak/'

During the time of the Bendahara dynasty (c. 1699-1898) primogeniture was likewise not.considered the basic condition of the right to the throne. Sultan Sulaiman, the second ruler of that dynasty, for instance, was a son of a minor wife born after his father assumed the royal title of Sultan Abdul Jalil, but was preferred by his father to succeed him. The most well-known case of the eldest son being pushed aside in favour of the .younger one during this period was of course the case of Tengku Long [Sulung] later made Sultan Hussain of Singapore by Stamford Raffles, and his younger brother

5 The selection of Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah was so opposed by his paternal grandmother, Raja Tua, that she decided to poison him and, after his death. give the throne to her favourite grandson, Raja Muhammad who was expelled to Pahang as a result of a fracas in which the son of the Bendahara Tun Perak was killed. She however failed in her mission. Sejarah Melayu, op.cit., pp. 103-4.

6 Sejarah Melayu, op.cit., pp.183-185l.

3

JMBRAS VOL. 66

Sultan Abdul Rahman Shah. I

The Bugis who became protectors and king-makers of the Riau-Lingga kingdom during the Bendahara period showed little respect and awareness for the rule of primogeniture. When the five Opu brothers had completed their part of the bargain of restoring the Bendahara ruler on the throne, they were rewarded with the title of the Yang Di-Pertuan Muda/Y am Tuan Muda or the second ruler Of the kingdom. Daeng Parani, the eldest of the brothers, was not selected to the office; it was Daeng Marewa who was by the brotherly consensus appointed to this royally prestigious and powerful office.s The succession to the office of the Yam Tuan Muda confirmed anything but the rule of primogeniture. The picture was somewhat similar in the other related branches of the Bendahara-Bugis lines. In both Johor and Pahang territories it was the younger sons who succeeded the. fathers, the Temanggung (Johor), and the Bendahara (Pahang) and

laid the foundation of the.sultanates," .

...

A quick survey of the succession practice in other states in the Malay peninsula would confirm the observation above, that primogeniture was not and had never been one of the basic conditions for the claim to the Malay throne. The Merong Mahawangsa relates the story about the three elder sons of Raja Merong Mahapudisat who were sent out to find their own kingdoms which turned out to be Siam, Perak and Pattani, The youngest son was kept by the ruler's side and finally succeeded him as the rulerof Kedah.1O The struggle for the throne between Tunku Dhiauddin, then Sultan Muda and ruler of Perlis, and Tunku Pangeran, who were respectively the brother and the son of the deceased Sultan Abdullah at the close of the eighteenth century confirms that primogeniture was not the deciding factor in the choice of the ruler in Ketlah. The Kedah "State Councll" selected Tunku Dhiauddin (1798-1804) to succeed his brother over the claim of Tunku Pangeran, the deceased sultan's eldest son. Meanwhile a quick glance at the Perak genealogy of kings since the reign of Sultan Muzaffar Shah I (1528-1549), even before the practice of the rotation system, reveals that the right to succeed was vested among the sons, brothers, nephews and cousins of the ruler. The "best" candidate won regardless of whether he was the first-born son of the ruler or not. II Among the east coast states of Trengganu, Kelanran and Pahang emerged a similar picture. The succession in Kelantan, for: example, appeared to be a complicated affair since the setting-up of the Long Yunus Line. Muhammad I of Kelantan was not the eldest son of rLong Yunus and his succession to the throne was a result of an armed struggle against

7 Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir, tr. A.H. Hill, The Hikayat Abdullah, Kuala Lumpur, OUP. 1970, pp. 155-168. !) The Tuhfat al-Nafis, op.cit., pp.63-4.

9 For the history of the modem Johor and Pahang see C.A. Trocki, Prince of Pirates.Singapore, Singapore University Press, 1979; R.O. Winstedt, A History of lahore, Kuala-Lumpur. MBRAS Reprint no. 6. 1979; W. Linehan, "The Bendaharas of Pahang", 1MBRAS, 4(3). 1926, and A His/Dry of Pahang, Kuala Lumpur, IvrnRAS Reprint no. 2, 1973; A.C. Milner, Kersjaan, Malay Political Culture on the Eve of Colonial Rule,

Tuscan. the University of Arizona Press, 1982. •

10 Siti Hawa Saleh, Hikayat Merang Mahawangsa, Kuala Lumpur. University of Malaya Press, 1970. pp, 36- 40.

II More on what constituted the criteria of the "best" candidate below. On the Perak sultanate and succession see Khoo Kay Kim. "Succession to the Petak Sultanate", 1MBRAS vol. LVI, pt.2. 1983, pp. 7-30. and "The Perak Sultanate: Ancient And Modem", 1MBRAS. vol.LIX pt.I, 1986,pp.1-16. See also B.W. Andaya, Petak: The Abode of Grace, Kuala Lumpur, OUP, 1979.

4

..

PART2,1993

the then ruler of Kelantan, Tengku Muhammad, the Trengganu prince and son-in-law of Long Yunus. In his tum, the capable Sultan Muhammad Senik Mulut Merah, believed by many to be the choice of his uncle, Sultan Muhammad I (1807-1838), over the claim of the ruler's numerous brothers and nephews which included the two elder brothers of Senik Mulut Merah, had to resort to the armed struggle and political and military assistance from Bangkok, to materialize his claim to the Kelantan throne. The existence of the large family of Sultan Ahmad (1886-1889) added another confusion to the succession practice in that state which had already witnessed repeated armed struggles for the throne since the beginning of the nineteenth century. 12

In the traditional Malay socio-religious context, the rule of primogeniture was hard to develop. Polygamy presented a strong obstacle to the right of the first-born son since the rivalries, intrigues, and ambitions of the wives of the rulers, often with the strong support of their respective family, made it most difficult for the princes and their supporters to accept such a hard and fast rule. Many rulers of the Melaka sultanateSultan Muzaffir Shah (the 5th. ruler), Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah (the 7th. ruler) and Sultan Mahmud Shah (the 8th. ruler)-were neither the first-born nor the son of the royal consort but were able to sit on the throne mainly because of the support of their maternal clan. Islam also presented another discouraging factor. The Islamic teachings made no different among the children of a man. If they were sons they were of equal status to the parental heritage. It would be hard to convince the Malay society to accept the absolute ftght of one son over the rest.

Another principle which was and still is wrongly believed to be one of the main factors deciding who should ascend the Malay throne, namely the preceding right of the fully royal son/anak gahara (son of royal mother) over his inferior (half) royal brothers/anak gundik whose mother was a commoner, was another principle that had little influence in the traditional Malay succession scenario. It was true that royal offsprings of the Malay ruler had been classified since the Sejarah Melayu time in accordance with their maternal status. It was also true that in the refined social hierarchy of the royalty, the fully royal prince or princess was superior to his/her (half) royal siblings. But politically, his claim to succeed did not as a rule take precedence over that of other sons of the ruling raja. The Sejarah Melayu and the Tuhfat al-Nafis demonstrate beyond doubt that the anak gahara's claim to ascend the throne has repeatedly been pushed aside in favour of that of an anak gundik, The great king of Melaka, Sultan Muzaffir Shah/Raja Kassim was one such anak gundik. His mother was a daughter of Tun Perpatih Besar, the penghulu bendahari of Seri Maharaja and the proponent of the Muslim faction in the Melaka court. His brother, Raja Ibrahim who ascended the throne as Seri Parameswara Dewa Shah, was deposed by a ministerial coalition led by Raja Kassim's maternal grandfather and Raja Kassim then became the ruler of Melaka in his place. Raja Ibrahim/Sultan Seri Parameswara Dewa Shah was the fully royal son; his .

12 For some information on the rajaship in the east coast state see Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, 1988, op.cit., and "The Quiet Affairs in the Siamese-Malay Relations in the Nineteenth Century" JEBAT, 1985; Rahmat Saripan, Perkembangan Politik Melayu Tradisional Kelantan, 1776-1841, Kuala Lumpur, DBP, 1979; A.C. Milner, "The Malay Raja: A Study of Malay Political Culture in East Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula in the Early Nineteenth Century", PhD. thesis, Cornell University, 1977; B.W. Andaya and LY. Andaya, A History of Malaysia, London, Macmillan, 1982. See also section: Selected Illustrating Cases below.

5

..

JMBRAS VOL. 66

mother being a princess of Rekan. If Sultan Muzaffir Shah came to throne by force, other anak gundik were certainly preferred over their elder fully royal brothers. The choice of Sultan Mahmud's of Raja Alauddin over his fully royal son Raja Muda Raja Muzaffar was such one example. 13 The similar choices made by Sultans Abdul Jalil and Mahmud of Johor-Riau likewise suggest that such decisions were a common practice during the traditional time. In fact it has been confirmed that during the time of the Melaka sultanate only one anak gahara, Sultan Alauddin I whose mother was a Batara of Majapahit, s~cceeded to the throne and "did well" in that office." As mentioned above, the only other anak gahara, Raja Ibrahim, Sultan Seri Parameswara Dewa Shah, who did succeed his royal father, lost his life after about 18 months on the throne.

It was true that the fully royal princes appeared to be holding a thin edge over their anak gundik brothers in the eighteenth and the nineteenth century, but this did not mean that their right to the throne was automatically superior to other siblings. There were other factors which normally worked in support of the claim of the candidacy of a particular fully royal prince.

It may be concluded that both the claims based on primogeniture and maternal status helped only in a situation when all things being equal, as the saying goes, to score some extra-points over their leading opponents. It is evident from what happened .in the traditional time that most of the time these "special" rights did not in any meaningful wat disqualify other claimants .to the throne who were no members of such selective "club". Conversely, it can be argued that it was not so much the birthright but rather the power and position of the claimant's maternal clan that would clinch a victory for the

particular candidate. J

. If primogeniture and anak gahara were not the deciding factors in the selection of a successor to the throne, how then did they become so commonly accepted as the main principle of the succession to the Malay sultanate? It is clear that the concept of the overriding right of the first-born son of the royal consort has been crystalised, if not insisted, by the colonial administrators in their effort to exact some definite rules from the vaguely flexible guidelines on succession practised in the Malay society, In fact the concept of primogeniture was a Western socio-cultural practice since the Middle Ages. It was something the colonial officials could readily understand and identify. Sir Richard Winstedt wrote with such precision in 1947 that "A Malay ruler's heir was and is normally his eldest son, but preferably the son of a royal consort ... [However] to avoid disputes after his death, a Malay ruler, like a Hindu king, nominated his Heir Apparent, the Raja Muda or Young Raja, during his lifetime.t'P Nothing could be further from the truth. The history of the Melaka-Johor and Johor-Riau-Lingga sultanates alone illustrates the fallacy of such conclusion. The British themselves, so it appears, only respected the rule of rrimogeniture and the overriding right of the fully royal son when it suited their interest. For instance, the right of Tengku Long [Sulong], later Sultan Husain of

13 See LR. Bowen, "Cultural Models for Historical Genealogies: the Case of the Melaka Sultanate" in Kernial Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatley, eds., Me/aka: the Transformation of a Malay capital c.1400-1980, Singapore,ISEAS and OUP, 1983, and C.H. wake, "Melaka in the Fifteenth Century: Malay Historical traditions and the Politics of Islamization" in Sandhu and Wheatly op.cit,

14 J.C. Bowen, op.cir., p.169.

15 R.O. Winstedt, The Malays: A Cultural History, Singapore, Kelly and Walsh, 1947, p. 60.

6

/

PART 2, 1993

Singapore, was recognised by Raffles in 1819 when the British needed a compliant Malay ruler who could, at least in theory, confer legitimacy upon their occupation of Singapore, then part of the Riau-Lingga empire. As stated earlier, Sultan Mahmud had chosen his favourite younger son Tengku Abdul Rahman, born of a low-born mother, to succeed him instead of his eldest son, Tengku Long. The selection of Sultan Abdul Rahman had by then been accepted by all concerned including Tengku Long himself who obediently went to stay with the Yam Tuan Muda Raja Jafar at Lingga.!" Nonetheless, the principle of primogeniture was employed by Raffles in his recognition of Tengku Long as the rightful sultan of Lingga. After the royal installation, Raffles signed a contract with him and Temenggong Abdul Rahman, chieftain of Singapore and the Johor mainland, for the British right to settle in Singapore.!" However, when primogeniture not only did not serve the British interests but also obstructed or caused difficulty to the British authorities and administration, it was quickly abandoned or overlooked. The case of Sultan Muhammad of Trengganu (1918-1920) who was pressured to abdicate by Humphreys, the then British Agent, showed how the British did away with those who refused to co-operate with them; first-born or no first-born son mattered very little in such a situation. In reality then only lip-service had been paid to the much-spoken-of principles of primogeniture and sons of the royal consort. Ironically, the principle of the right of the first-born son appeared to gain much iafluence among the l.ew Malay ruling clique and the Western-educated Malays of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Johor and Pahang provided clear evidence of such practice, perhaps because of the apprehension of the ruler of dynastic struggles that could destroy the new dynasty set up only by the middle of the nineteenth centl1ry. Thus the practice of appointing the eldest son to the position of the heir apparent became common. Sultan Ahmad Shah (1863-1914), founder of the Pahang sultanate from the old Bendahara fief, assiduously conferred the title of Tengku Besar on his first-born son, Tengku Mahmud, later Sultan Malunud (1914-17), in 1891 and, after receiving the approval of the High Commissioner, conducted a grand installation ceremony in 1897. In his tum, Sultan Abdullah of Pahang (1917-32) appointed his eldest Son Tengku Abu Bakar Tengku Mahkota. He resorted to create this new title for the heir apparent of Pahang because the office of Tengku Besar was then occupied by Tengku Sulaiman, the Sultan's younger brother. To avoid future conflicts and misunderstandings as to which was the title of the "heir apparent", Sultan Abdullah sought the assent of the Pahang major magnates and the

16 Sultan Abdul Rahman Shah was a son of Encik Mariam, daughter of a Bugis, Bandar Hasan, from Sidenreng in Sulawesi and a Balinese woman, a slave to Bandar Husan's wife. It was her low birth which was a principal reason for the opposition to the installation of Abdul Rahman Shah by Tengku Putri, Sultan Mahmud's royal consort and thus Abdul Rahman's step mother. Tengku Putri preferred to see the RiauLingga crown to go to Tengku Long who was also an anak gundik. Tuhfat al-Nofis, op.cit., p.382.

17 According to Munshi Abdullah, the appointment declaration stated that "the Governor-General of India has appointed Tengku Long to be the Sultan of Singapore and all the territories comprised in it , with the title of Sultan Husain Shah ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Mahmud", See further details of the negotiations for the British right over Singapore in (Munshi) Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir, The Hikayat Abduilah, A.H. Hill tr., Kuala Lumpur,OUP, 1970, pp.141·57. It was clear that the British regarded this appointment of Sultan Husain as a mere "legal necessity" and did not really convinced of the Sultan's birthright. See CA. Trocki, op.cit., p.47; Winstcdt, op.cit., p.47, quotes Governor Murchison in 1835 that Husain was never recognised by the Malays, "he was pronounced Sultan for a particular object and no reason now exists for the recognition of a mere titular prince".

7

/

JMBRAS VOL. 66

British authorities before the appointment of his son to the title and privileges of Tengku Mahkota, the office of the heir apparent of the sultanate. 18

In general, the concept of heir apparent, the titles often referred to as those of the heir apparent to the Malay throne were the Raja Muda or its equivalents such as the Tengku Mahkota, the Tengku Besar or the Sultan Muda, was only so recognized at the ruler's pleasure. In this condition, there was no real heir apparent to the Malay throne as the Malays never subscribed to the concept of the absolute birthright of the eldest son over others. It thus followed that the Malays did not embrace the hard and fast concept of the heir apparent to the throne as understood in the Western order of things. In the Malay royal hierarchy, the title indicating its holder's official right to the throne might be more accurately described as the office of the heir presumptive which was represented by the office of the Raja Muda. The Raja Muda was generally expected to succeed to the throne, barring no unexpected happenings such as the ruler's change of heart, which occurred in the case of Tengku Muzaffar the Raja Muda in the reign of his father Sultan Mahmud of Melaka. The prince almost suddenly lost his claim to his younger halfbrother Tengku Alauddin when Sultan Mahmud changed his mind and appointed Tengku Alauddin Sultan Muda and thus taking precedence over Tengku Muzaffar.l'' In the state of Kedah, however, the Raja Muda was not normally expected to succeed the ruler. He was more of the sultan's principal and most trusted assistant in the administration of the state. nre Raja Muda of Kelantan Tengku Zainal Abidin who was the younger brother of Sultan Muhammad IV had to give up the position of Raja Muda to the sultan's son eventually. He was, however, handsomely compensated for his own and his descendants' loss.20 The concept of the heir apparent thus found no solid ground ~ the traditional political development of the Malay sultanate.

The Rules of Succession That Were

It is appropriate at this point to stress that the "rules" of succession which are to be discussed only apply in the general term to those states in the Malay peninsula which more or less followed the model of the Melaka sultanate. The main focus is given to the period before the arrival of the British colonialism. The survey of these "rules and regulations" pertaining to the succession to the Malay sultanate reveals the first

1& See W.R. Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya Press, 1967, p.: 200.

19 The Sejarah M elayu interestingly describes the event as follow:

"No sooner was this prince [Raja Alauddin Shah] bom than the royal cushion of Raja Muazaffar Shah was removed. And when Sultan [Muda] Alauddin was seven days olds, his father had his head shaved, whereupon the rug of Raja Muzaffar Shah was removed and he was left with nothing to sit upon except a mat such as ordinary people use. And when he was forty days old Sultan ala uddin was named by Sultan Mahmud Shah as his successor on the throne, to be styled Sultan Muda, [The Sejarah Melayu, op.cit., pp.165·6.

It is to be noted that Raja Alauudin Shah was neither the first-born son of the monarch, nor an anak gahara, his mother being Tun Fatirnah, the beautiful daughter of Bendahara Seri Maharaja. Raja Muzaffar Shah, presumably a son of a royal consort and older than his baby brother, was passed over without much ado.

20 Tengku Zainal Abidin was the father of Tengku Hamzah, one of the two leading "new men" who became the Menteri Besar of Kelantan after the war. He was therefore the grandfather of the enigmatic Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah,

8

"

r

\

# I

I

PART 2,1993

important fact namely there was really no hard and fast rule on the selection of a new ruler. Besides the unspoken rule that the qualified candidate must come from an "impeccable" lineage, i.e., must be able to claim a blood tie with the ruling house, a successful candidate to the Malay throne should possess other assets desirable to the state at a particular time." Normally, he should command respect and support of the ruling class-royalty and aristocracy, possess certain personal ability and prestige, be the choice of the deceased ruler, be able to rely on the moral and/or military assistance from a powerful ally, and be a member of the ruling house. In short, a successful candidate must be able to satisfy the body of guidelines practised and adjusted since the Melaka sultanate. Because of these vague and flexible "conditions", the succession to the Malay throne often caused a crisis and conflict among its aspirants. 'Practically, any male relation of the deceased ruler had a claim to succeed him: his sons, brothers, uncles, cousins, sons-in-law, etc. Perhaps because of this liberal flexibility which was the root cause of tensions, conflicts and even armed struggles within the state, the Perak ruling clique devised the rotation system after the reign of Sultan Ahrnaddin Shah (1786-1806) in order to introduce some tangible "rules" to the selection of a new ruler.22 Even though the guidelines were numerous and at times conflicting, there appeared that weight was given to some guidelines more than the others. Two of the traditional conditions which normally would clinch the throne for the successful claimant were first the wish of the dytng ruler and secondly the assent and support of the "MajIis Negara".

The Sejarah Melayu is again a wealth of information on the near absolute power of the ruler to name who should succeed him. Sultan Mansur Shah (1459-1477), the sixth ruler of Melaka, gathered his children, the Bendahara and chiefs around him and expressed his dying wish that his son, Raja Radin should succeed him. To this Bendahara Paduka Raja replied on behalf of those present,

" .. .if perchance the grass should wither in your Highness' mead, then our sale concern shall be to give effect to your Highness' bidding." 23

Sultan Mahmud, the eighth ruler, did likewise. He bequeathed the Melaka sultanate to

21 An "impeccable" lineage of an unbroken transmission of royal power daulat is in fact the sole overriding claim made by the Melaka rulers to rule over their Malay subjects. The Bendahara sultans tried to exhibit their legitimacy and therefore continuing daulat through the manipulation of the family genealogy showing their family tie with the Melaka dynasty since the setting-up of the latter. In the "new version "of th~ royal genealogy (the Shellabear version of the Sejarah' Melayu, the first Bendahara, the ancestor of the Bendahara line, was the younger brother of the second ruler of the Melaka line (Seri Pikrama Wira, second ruler of Singapore). As Bowen points out, this makes the Bendahara a junior royalty by descent, rather than a pre· eminent subject by alliance as showed in the Raffles M,S. 18. See J.R. Bowen, op.cit., pp.170· 173. Also see W.G. Shellabear, ed., Sejaraii Meiayu, Singapore, Malaya Publishing House, 1961; A. Reid and L. Castles, eds., Pre-colonial Stale Systems in Southeast Asia, Monograph no. 16, MBRAS, Kuala Lumpur, 1975,

22 For the genealogy and development of the Perak succession see, Khoo Kay Kim, "Succession to the Perak Sultanate", op.cit.; J.M. Gullick, Rulers and Residents, Influence and Power in the Malay States 1870· 1920, Singapore, OUP, 1992, chap. 8. See also Selected Illustrating Cases below.

23 The Sejarah Melayu, op.cit., p. 103. Raja Radin/Raja Husain was then installed as ruler of Melaka with the reigning name of Sultan Alauddin Riayat Shah (the 7th, ruler,1477-1488). He was, as mentioned above, not the first-born son of the royal consort. His mother was the sister of the Bendahara Paduka Raja. In choosing Raja Radin, Sultan Mansur had bypassed his fully royal and older son, Raja MUhammad. Because of this, Raja Radin's succession was opposed by his grandmother who tried to kill him and wished to see Raja Muhammad of Pahang as sultan. C.H. Wake, "Melaka in the Fifteenth Century.", op.cit., p.149,

9

_' .......... ____._ ~_~_ , __ ~ __ • •.••• "'+-co

l

JMBRAS VOL. 66

his young son, Raja Alauddin Riayat Shah. In so doing, he not only passed over his elder son but also demoted him from the office of heir presumptive to the throne. His wish was quietly accepted by his chiefs and the royal family.

I The Tuhfat al-Nafis records in detail the expressed wish of Sultan Mahmud of Riau-Lingga to have his young and favourite son, Tengku Abdul Rahman, as his successor. He summoned Yang Dipertuan Muda Raja Jafar together with the elders and dignitaries of Riau-Lingga to him and stated,

"Jafar, if it is the wish of Allah Almighty that I die in a few days, or shortly after that, r entrust Komeng [that is, his son Tengku Abdul Rahman] to you, and my last testament is that if I die, you are to make Komeng my successor in the kingdom." 24

When he was actually dying, Sultan Mahmud kept repeating to his Yam Tuan Muda, "Tafar, Komeng, Jafar, Komeng' several times." The sultan's wish was obeyed without any official objection from the Yang Dipertuan Muda, Tengku Husain, Mahmud's eldest son, and all dignitaries of the realm.

It seemed that if the ruler wish were to be effectively discarded, force would have to be used. This was evident in the case of Raja Ibrahim/Sultan Seri Parameswara Dewa Shah who was apparently the choice of his father but was opposed by the Tun Perpatih Besy camp. He was eventually deposed by "a ministerial coalition" presumably led by Tun Perpatih Besar who placed Raja Kassim, his nephew, on the throne instead. In another case, Sultan Muhammad Jiwa (1710-1778) of Kedah who changed his mind and named his own son Tunku Abdullah born to him by a minor wife his successor. Some of his relatives and chieftains were unhappy with the royal choice and decided to solicit military aid from the Bugis against their own ruler. The test of strength went in favour of the Sultan and those who opposed him had to flee and live an exile life in Selangor. Generally, then, the expressed choice of the ruler was respected by his family and the dignitaries of the kingdom who formed the Majlis Negara or its equivalent. It seemed that if the ruler was not certain of his power he would refrain from naming his successor. This was in fact the case with Sultan Abdullah (1778-1798) of Kedah who failed to name either his influential brother, Tunku Dhiauddin, the Sultan Muda of Perlis, or his elder son Tunku Pangeran as his successor. The task was left to the Majlis Negara to decide who should ascend the Kedah throne. The approved candidate of this august yet unofficial body became the legitimate ruler of the state.

The role of the Majlis Negara was twofold. It was the MajIis Negara which gave assent to the royal choice of successor. As mentioned above, when the sultan wished to make known his choice of successor, he would summon his chiefs, his family members and others to him and declared his wish as well as demanded their support of his choice. With their assent, the sultan was assured that his hand-picked successor would in due course ascend the throne. The Majlis Negara became most important in the selection of the new ruler once the ruler passed away without naming his successor. The membership of the Majlis Negara varied from state to state and, even in the same state varied from time to time. However, generally speaking, it consisted the senior and influential members of the kerabat diraja, the major chieftains or magnates and officials of the

24 Tulifal al-Nafis, op.cit., pp.217-8.

10

~~ .. , ...... :,-.,~

/

PART 2,1993

realm, and the leading ulama.25 TIle choice made by the Majlis Negara, Similar to that chosen by the ruler, assumed the power and authority, and acquired all the royal attributes of the legitimate ruler. Rulers who were so chosen were undisputedly legitimate sultans of their state. Only force could deprive them of their throne and inheritance. So, in this traditional scenario, the rule of "might is right", as the last resort in the contest for power, prevailed when a succession dispute could not be settled peacefully and/or satisfactorily. The struggle for the Melaka-Johor throne between Sultan Abdul Jalil and his son Tengku Sulaiman on the one hand, and Raja Kecik of Siak on the other is a good example of this. Eventually, the right to rule the Malay kingdom of Melaka-Johor went to the Bendahara kings as they and their ally, the Bugis, won the war against Raja Kecik of Siak, The Bendahara rulers might be successful in camouflaging their right to the throne in the adat terms, i.e., genealogy and the unbroken transmission of the daulat, and right to succeed the Melaka kings. Nonetheless the stark fact remained, their royal position was underpinned by the military might of the Bugis without which the Bendahara rulers could hardly hope to maintain their royal pretension. Because of the widespread and influential role of the Bugis, the history of the Malay peninsula of the eighteenth century has appropriately been dubbed the Bugis century.i"

Other minor "rules and regulations" of succession dealt with the candidate and his personal attributes. Generally speaking, a successful candidate must be able to claim his right based on his birth, namely, he must at least be able to "prove" that he was a member of the ruling house, the closer to the deceased ruler the better. 27 More significant, however, especially after the regicide of 1699, was the personal ability of each candidate. A successful candidate usually commanded respect and support of his peers, i.e., the ruling class, and occupied an influential position in the government prior to his candidacy. He might gain a decisive edge if he represented a compromise or neutral choice among various cliques vying for the throne. It "{auld also serve well his political interest if the candidate was supported by a powerful maternal clan who could swing the "public opinion", i.e., the ruling magnates and dignitaries in his favour. An ideal candidate therefore should be the son of the reigning monarch by his royal consort or a minor wife who had a strong and influential connections, possessed personal wisdom in matters concerning the administration and politics of the realm, commanded support and loyalty of the great and influential chiefs, of high moral reputation, and was able to summon military assistance from an outside power if need arise. One of the candidates who almost filled this bill was Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarfam Shah of

25 In Trengganu, for example, the ulama played from the beginning of the sultanate a crucial role in deciding the successor to each sultan. It was at one time widely believed that when the Yang Dipertuan Muda was the sultan's eldest son, he would unlikely to succeed in the ordinary course of events. CO 273/351 Anderson to CO, 17 November 1909 quoted in Shaharil Talib After Its Own Image, The Trengganu

Experience 1881-1941. Singapore, OUP, 1984, p.22, 41, note.63. e-

26 B.W. Andaya and L.Y. Andaya, A History of Malaysia, London, Macmillan Press, 1982.

27 As stated earlier, the concept of "impeccable" lineage prevailed most effectively during the Melaka-Johor sultanate (up to 1699). After that, it was a principle to be respected, and as long as a candidate could through his ingenuity produce a "prove" of this blood tie, he was not seriously scrutinised on this qualification. Raja Kecik of Siak claimed his blood tie with the' Melaka house by inventing a most attractive story of his miraculous conception and thus was able to pass himself off as the posthumous son of the last king of the Melaka line. See The Siak: Chronicle and the Tuhfat al Nafis.

11

.I

1MBRAS VOL. 66

Kedah (1854-1879). Even he had to struggle to achieve the sultanare.P' In reality it was practically impossible to summon such elitist qualifications from anyone candidate, and it seemed a satisfactory choice if the successful candidate would be in some way related by blood to the ruling monarch and was able to handle the powerful and influential chiefs of the state and thus keep the state, in a relative peace and harmony. This realistic search was mirrored by the choice of the heir presumptive, the Raja Muda, at the beginning of a new reign, who was almost without fail not the son of the ruler but his close or distant and capable relation who could assist the ruler in the administration of the state.

In conclusion, it is essential to realise that throughout the traditional period, once

.It.

selected and installed, the new ruler automatically acquired all the royal attributes of his

office. He was the supreme ruler, with the mystic and sacrosanct power as much as the real and worldly authority which made him the object revered and respected by all his subjects high or low. His wishes were their commands. Because he was endowed with the daulat, any act against his person and authority was a heinous crime, a derhaka.29 In other words, the sultanate was his for life. As Seri Tri Buana insisted, the ruler remained ruler "even if [he] oppress[es] [the subjects] and behavels] evilly".

By the second half of the nineteenth century when the British had successfully established their colonial rule in the peninsula, these flexible and adjustable guidelines underwent substantial changes. Even the most practised and respected of all the guidelines, the wish of the incumbent raja and/or the choice of the Majlis Negara suffered a drastic curtail in prestige and effectiveness. Though British colonial rule was indirect in theory, it was, as Malaya advanced into the twentieth century and particularly after 1920, increasingly direct and blatant in practice. Since the assassination of Birch in 1876, the British authorities assumed the right to administer with hardly more than a scant respect to the ruler's opinion. This was clear in matter concerning the royal appointments which had traditionally been the preserve of the ruler acting in conjunction with the council of orang besar-besar or in accordance with the adat.3o More relevant here is the right to select and appoint the successor to the sultanate. As pointed out by Sidhu, the succession to the sultanate was, on a strict interpretation of the Treaties signed between the British and Malay authorities, within the purview of the Malay rulers and those empowered by the adat to share the burden. This was totally though subtlely disregarded by the British in the process of strengthening their grip on the economic and political development of Malaya. The ground rule for the selection of a new ruler was no longer the wish of the reigning sultan nor the choice of the state council but that he must be personally acceptable to the colonial regime. The choice of Sultan Iskander (perak,

28 See detail below in Selected Illustrating Cases.

29 It is interesting to see how the Hikayat Pahang, for example tries 10 get around Ahmad's eventual succession to the office of Bendahara and-sultanate when it was a common knowledge that the rightful ruler of the Johor-Rlau-Lingga empire was still alive and interested to be crowned Sultan of Pahang. See Hikayat Pahang, romanized version in the Arkib Negara, Kuala Lumpur; A.C. Milner, op.cit., chap. 3 and 4.

30 Jagjit Singh Sidhu, Administration in the Federated Malay States 1896·1920, Kuala Lumpur, OUP, 1980, pp.lII-119. Sidhu fells how Swettenham brushed aside the expressed desire of Sultan Ahmad of Pahang to have D. Wise appointed Resident of Pahang in place of Clifford who had a reputation of being quite abrupt in his dealings. Swettenham told the ruler that it was "neither usual nor possible" to take into account the preferences of a Malay ruler in the appointment of residents.

12

PART 2, 1993

1918-38) to succeed his brother was based on his "absolute loyalty" to the colonial administration, a virtue which outweighed his other perceived deficiencies." As a rule, it was considered more important to have a pliant, even if incompetent, ruler than an intelligent and free-thinking candidate on the throne, most particularly if that candidate entertained an unfriendly attitude towards the colonial rule. The traditional guidelines concerning the rightful claimant to the throne were at best followed if it suited the interests of the colonial masters but were often ignored in favour of the "better" choice based on acceptibility to the colonial regime. The fate of Tengku Musa'eddin, the eldest son of Sultan Sulaiman of Selangor born of his royal consort Tengku Mahrum, is worth looking into. He was appointed Raja Muda in 1920 and thus was his father's choice to succeed to the throne. However, Tengku Musa'eddin was not in the Resident's good book and, as result, he was deprived of the office of Raja Muda by the intrigue engineered by the then Resident of Selangor, T.S. Adams, in 1934. His fate was forced upon his reluctant father. Finally, the office went to his younger brother, the third son of the Sultan who eventually ascended the throne in 1938 as Sultan Alam Shah.32 In somewhat the same manner, Sultan Muhammad of Trengganu (1918-20) was pressured and outmanouevred by the British Agent to abdicate since he could not affect a workable relation with the latter. Needless to say, Tengku Muhammad was the choice of his royal father Sultan Zainal Abidin III and received support and assent of the Trengganu ruling class.

It is evident that the British stand that it was they who decided, on the principle of acceptability, who should ascend the throne brought a most damaging consequence to the power and prestige of the ruler as well as to his relations with the Malay subjects. It did not take long for all to see that the supposedly highest office of the land was but a shell of power. Its occupant exercised neither right nor real power in any matter concerning the administration and even the adat of the realm. The ruler became in the true sense of the word the titular head of the state. The powerlessness of the sultan in their dealing with the colonial officials led to the erosion of ruler-subjects relations. The inability or unwillingness of the ruler to safeguard the traditional law and institutions together with his submissiveness in the face of such blatant violation of his prerogatives not only emphasised further his being powerless but also lost him his subjects' respect and reverence. As Sidhu puts it, "the Sultanate had forfeited one of its principal duties and the sultans were no longer entitled to the respect in which they had been held".33 What was practised by the colonial authorities in connection with the succession question was in fact the camouflaged principle of "might is right", the method employed in the traditional Malay sultanate as a last resort when all others failed. It was because the British were powerful and the Malay rulers impotent that gave the "right" to the British to decide who was acceptable as the ruler. Though this claim was apparently acceptable to the hapless rulers of the Malay sultanates, it was as evidently unacceptable to the average Malays who eventually arose against the colonial masters.

~~ J.M. Gullick, Rulers and Residents, op.cit., pp. 290-92.

See W.R. Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism, Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya Press, 1967; Tengku Daeng.Abdul Hamid b. Tengku Haji Mohammad Saleh, Sentosa Ketakhtaan Selangor, Klang,

33 1?38; G.M. Gullick, 1992, op.cit. .

SIdhU, op.cit., p.119.

13

l

JMBRAS VOL. 66

It must be made clear however that the British tacitly accepted the traditional "rule" that once a ruler, the sultan remained a ruler and theoretically the highest authority in his domain. Short of the use of superior military force, there was no man-made institution that could claim jurisdiction over him. Because of this acceptance, the colonial regime had to resort to other means in its attempts to prevent undesirable candidates occupying the throne. If the undesirable personality happened to the sultan himself as in the case of Sultan Muhammad of Trengganu, various political and economic pressures and obstacles were heaped upon him to force his abdication. If he was the "rightful" heir, then the authority of the sultan was evoked to get rid of this objectionable person. Only the sultan himself "decided" whether he or his heir was the rightful occupant of the throne.

Selected Illustrating Cases

Three sultanates are here selected as cases illustrating the aforesaid analysis concerning the question of succession : Kedah, Perak and Kelantan. Kedah represents the oldest sultanate of today Malaysia with a wealth of experiences worth examining; Perak represents an effort to accommodate the desire of numerous claimants by the invention of the rotation system; Kelantan represents a fairly new sultanate on the east coast whose political development was influenced as much by internal as external factors. Focus is on the development of the succession "rules" from the nineteenth century onwards.

KEDAH

I

It can accurately be said that the Kedah sultanate represents the most "impeccable" and

illustrious genealogy among all sultanates in Malaysia. The Merong Mahawangsa dynasty, the ruling house of Kedah, is the only dynasty ever to rule that state since its inception. More impressive is the fact that all the rulers since Merong Mahawangsa himself have all come to the throne through the male descendants of this illustrious founder of the kingdom. Nonetheless, the beginning of the nineteenth century found Kedah in the throng of succession dispute, namely between Sultan Muda Dhiauddin and his nephew Tunku Pangeran, the eldest son though not of the principal consort of Sultan Abdullah.I" Sultan Abdullah passed away without naming his successor. The council of chiefs decided to selected the Sultan Muda who had showed his ability as a leader and administrator during the reign of his brother Sultan Abdullah. as the new ruler. Sultan Dhiauddin might have been preferred by the council also because of the fact that he was named by his father, Sultan Mohammad Jiwa, as the second successor after his own brother, Sultan Abdullah. The claim of Tunku Pangeran was denied in 1798. Tunku Pangeran, unable to accept the decision made by the majority of the kerabat diraja and chieftains, decided to seek the military assistance from Siam. In 1804, the Tunku returned at the head of the Thai anny sent to put him on the Kedah throne. In the face of the overwhelming force, Sultan Dhiauddin abdicated in his nephew's favour and returned to rule Perlis until his death. Tunku Pangeran ascended the throne with the reigning title of Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah. His right to the sultanate was thus underwritten by the military might of BangkOk. In return for the good seIVice rendered,

34 See the genealogy of Kedah attached.

14

..

PART 2, 1993

Genealogy of the House of Kedah

Muhammad Jiwa 1710-1778

·------1

Dhiauddin 1798-1804

Abdullah 1778-1798

I

Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah 1804-1821, 1842-45

I

Zainal Rashid I 1845-1854

~.- .. -.-.-.-.--~---------,

Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah 1854-1879

Dhiauddin

(former Regent of Selangor, ex-Raja Muda)

Yaacob (Raja Muda)

+ Wan J'1h-

- -+ Wan Hajar

Zainal Rashid II 1879-1882

Abdul Aziz (Raja Muda)

Mahmud (Regent)

Abdul Hamid Halim Shah 1882-1943

I

Badlishah 1943-1958

r~~-·-,

Abdul Halirn Muazam Shah 1958-

Abdul Malik (Raja Muda)

15

JMBRAS VOL. 66

Ahmad Tajuddin agreed to accept the status of a Siamese tributary.l" The event s~emed to confirm the belief that the legitimacy of a ruler could be attained either by the traditional law, i.e., the adat concerning the succession, or by the superiority of the physical force.

The reign of Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin (1804-1821, 1842-5), as could be expected, was wrought by the political intrigues and instability promoted by his numerous siblings. It in fact led to the occupation of Kedah by Siam (1821-1842) and a long exile for the Sultan himself. However, the hardships caused by the war and the occupation of Kedah ushered in the new era of a relatively political stability and economic progress unheard of during the decades preceding it. There remained, however, conflicts and rivalries every time the problem of succession arose. But these were kept under control without having to resort to the armed struggle as in the olden days. For example, the end of Sultan Zainal Rashid I's reign (1845-1854) saw the struggle for the throne between the Raja Muda Tunku Mohammad Said clique and the Tunku Ahmad Tajuddin clique. However, both sides accepted the decision of the state council controlled by the influential Wan clan, and Tunku/Sulran Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah, the eldest son of the deceased sultan became the new ruler.

Tunku Ahmad Tajuddin was a capable young man. What was more interesting was the fact that through his mother, Wan Maheran the principal consort of Sultan Zainal Rashid I, the young prince could rely on the total support of hismatemal relatives to thr0l_intheir weight in his support. This was in fact what happened in 1854. Wan Ismail and'Wan Ibrahim, respectively the brother-in-law and brother of Wan Maheran, together with their friends and supporters successfully opposed the claim made ~y Raja Muda Tunku Muhammad Said.36 What happened in Kedah in 1854 was more or less a repeat of the events in Melaka or Johor of the fifteenth- seventeenth century. It emphasised the importance of the maternal connection of the royal candidate in enhancing the latter's chance in his fight for the sultanate.

Perhaps the most interesting succession conflict in Kedah during this period was the struggle between Tunku Zainal Rashid, later Sultan Zainal Rashid Il, and his younger brother Tunku Abdul Hamid in the first round (1879) and between the latter and Tunku Dhiauddin in the second and final round (1882). Both Tunku Zainal Rashid and Tunku Abdul Hamid were the sons born of the two principal consorts of Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah. Both had strong local support; Tunku Zainal Rashid was supported by his influential uncle and father-in-law Tunku Dhiauddin, the ex-Regent of Selangor, while his younger half brother was supported by another paternal uncle, Raja Muda Tunku Yaacob and his maternal uncle, the famous Wan Mat Samano Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin did not name either of his sons his successor though he had verbally indicated to his trusted brother Raja Muda Tunku Yaacob that he would like one of his sons to succeed him.37 The claims were made complicated still by the argument over the

35 R. Bonney, Kedah 1771-1821 : the Search for Security and independence, Kuala Lumpur, OUP, 1974; Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, Thai-Malay Relations, op.cit., chap.3.

36 Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, "Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah (1854-1879)". Malaysia dari segi Sejarah, vol, 17, 1989, pp.69-8L As a sign of his appreciation for their support. Ahmad Tajuddin married Wan Ismail's daughter, Wan Hajar. Unofficially she was acknowledged the first consort. The Sultan also showered favour on Wan Hajar's brother. Wan Mat Samano and eventually made him his chief minister.

16

/

PART 2, 1993

position of the two principal consorts. As above mentioned, Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin was first married to Wan Hajar, the sister of Wan Mat Saman, his chief minister. He was then married to Wan Jah, the mother of Tunku Zainal Rashid and the adopted daughter of Somdet Chao Phraya, Siam's strong man, with the blessing of King Chulalongkorn. Though Wan Hajar claimed precedence over Wan Jah as she was the first to marry the ruler, there was no official confirmation of her position. Both consorts were apparently treated as equal throughout the reign of Ahmad Tajuddin. It was not surprising that the council of state were unable to choose one between these two well-qualified candidates as successor to Ahmad Tajuddin. The matter was thus referred to Bangkok. Since 1842, Siam's claim as suzerain of Kedah had been accepted and it was the custom that the new ruler of Kedah was required to be approved by the King of Siam before he could be regarded as the rightful ruler. Both Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Halim Shah and Sultan Zainal Rashid I, as well as Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah himself were all approved by Bangkok. Bangkok tended to confirm the choice made by the council. However, as stated, in 1879 the council of dignitaries and chiefs failed to select the next ruler and required Bangkok to exercise actively its suzerain power over the matter. After studying the pros and cons of his alternatives, Chulalongkom decided in favour of Tunku Zainal Rashid on grounds that he was the elder son. Tunku Abdul Hamid was at the same time appointed Raja Muda,

The close struggle between the two brothers illustrates the weakness of the traditional Malay guidelines on the succession question. It also reveals the positive role of Kedah's suzerain in averting a civil war in Kedah; 'Bangkok's intervention offered the only peaceful means left to solve the impasse. Chulalongkom exercised his right as suzerain in deciding and confirming the suitable candidate to the Kedah sultanate, His participation was invited as well as accepted by the ruling class of Kedah.

The second round of the succession dispute occurred in 1882 after the unexpected death of Sultan Zainal Rashid. Again the dispute could not be solved without the mediation of Bangkok. Though the substantial number of the Kedah ruling clique supported the claim of Raja Muda Tunku Abdul Hamid, Tunku Dhiauddin refused to accept such a proposal. He in tum put forward the claim of Sultan Zainal Rashid's full brother who was older than Tunku Abdul Hamid, or failing that his own claim to the Kedah sultanate. Once more Kedah was in a state of political turmoil. Chulalongkorn again exercised his suzerain right and name Abdul Hamid the new ruler, this time on grounds that the ruling class and the common people of Kedah loved and respected 'him.

The two rounds of the 1879-1882 Kedah succession crisis revealed the new element added to the traditional ad at of selecting the new ruler, The use of force was ruled out by the fact that it would not be tolerated by Siam, the power that claim

37 Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian,"The Kedah Succession Crisis 1879-1882", IMBRAS, vol.LXII pt.2, 1989, pp.S1-10S. Gullick however quotes Tunku Abdul Rahman as stating that the Sultan actually made a will bequeathing the throne to Tunku Zainal Rashid. Gullick, "Kedah in the Reign of Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin II", IMBRAS, LVIII, pt. 2, 1985. To date there is no written evidence in support of this claim. It is most unlikely that the Sultan would do such a thing without first consulting King Chulalongkorn as he was well aware of Bangkok's sensitivity on the matter concerning. its suzerain rights. Moreover, Sultan Ahmad

. Tajuddin passed away rather suddenly. He might not have thought that he would die in 1879 and thus had no opportunity to arrange for the Kedah succession before he had passed away,

17

~,_,."-' ""+"""""""~ .• « _._ '-'. •• ·~~ ... '.w' ... ..,.r·~·~-.··

\

/

1MBRAS VOL. 66

suzerainty over Kedah. Thus the claimants could not resort to physical force as a means to decide the outcome of the conflict as did Tunku Pangeran at the beginning of the century. They had to accept the decision made by the outside power. Nonetheless, in making his choice, Chulalongkom certainly took into consideration the guidelines which fanned the "rules" of succession in Kedah, In 1879, because both claimants were of equal status, the King gave weight to age and selected the elder brother to rule. In 1882, the task was much easier. He ruled in favour of the Raja Muda officially because the latter was the choice of his people but personally because the King wanted to continue the 1ine of Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin Mukarram Shah, his favourite tributary ruler, on the Kedah throne. Whatever it was, the long-term result of the crisis was most beneficial to Kedah and its rulers.

Since 1882, succession in Kedah became almost a non-issue. This might be explained by the fact that the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid was very lengthy. The ruler had in fact outlived most of potential claimants of his own generation. He also survived a number of his elder sons, one of whom acted as his Regent, and was able to name his own successor among the numerous sons bam to him by a number of consorts none of whom was elevated to the status of the principal consort.i" The Sultan was clearly influenced by the Western concept of elder sons claiming priority to the younger ones, and thus chose his successors in accordance to their age hierarchy, i.e., the eldest had the first right over the subsequent siblings. The traditional right of the ruler to choose his successor was restored and practised without objection from the colonial regime who took over the suzerainty from Siam in 1909.

Kedah represents, as far as succession is concerned, the success of the transformation of the flexible guidelines to the more definite practice of the right of the ruler to choose his successor based on the mixed principle of western preference for the eldest son and the traditional mesyuarat dan muafakat between the berdaulat ruler and his state council. It has become an accepted rule that the incumbent sultan names his successor with the assent of the state council. A new trend also emerges. The office of Raja Muda is slowly being transformed into that of the heir-presumptive. Sultan Badlishah.did not hesitate to appoint his eldest son Tunku Abdul Halim to that office even at the time the latter was not able to perform the duty of the. Raja Muda.39 Tunku Abdul Halim was also named the successor to his father and ascended the throne with the assent of the concerned state dignitaries.

PERAK

The succession in Perak, whose sultan claimed on good authority the genealogy of the Palembang-Melaka line, represents the erosion of the traditional adat concerning the selection of the new ruler. Historically, Perak was the only sultanate that attempted to

38 See Muhammad Hassan bin Dato' Kerani Muhammad Arshad, Al-Tarikh Salasi/ah Negeri Kcdah, Kuala Lumpur, DBP, 1968, especially Appendix on the list of his children.

39 Sultan Badlishah himself was appointed by his father Raja Muda in 1935 and four years later SUCceeded his uncle Tunku Mahmud as Regent of Kedah. He was by then the eldest surviving son of Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah. When his father passed away on May 15, 1943, Sultan Badlishah was proclaimed the new ruler of Kedah, In his tum, Tunku Abdul Halim was appointed Raja Muda in 1949 while he was still studying in Britain and thus was unable to perform the conventional duty of the Raja Muda. It appeared Sultan Badlishah wished to single out his son as the next in line for the throne.

18

,

~

I

I

I \ \

1

PART 2, 1993

Genealogy of the Perak Sultanate

AHMADDIN SHAH (18) 1786-1806

ABDUL MALIK MANSUR SHAH (19)

1806-1825

Raju Inu Raja Abdul Rahman Raja Nandak (f)

ABDULLAH MUAZZAM SHAH (20)

1825-1830

Raja Ahmad

SI-WIABUDDIN (21) 1830-1841

ABDULLAH MOHAMMAD (22)

1841-50

JAFFAR(23) 1850-1865

Raja Alang 'Iskandar Bendahara

ALI (24) 1865-71

ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD SHAH (26)

1874-1876

I

Five Sons

Incl. Raja Chulan

Raja Muda Musa

YUSUF(27) Regent 1876-86

~1886-7

IDRIS MUSHIDUL' ADZAM SHAH (28) + Raja Nuteh

1887 - 19161 1

ISKANDAR SHAH (30) ABDUL JALIL (29)

1918 - 1938 1916 - 1918

ABDUL AZIZ (31) 1938-48

IDRIS ISKANDAR (33) 1963 - 1984

YUSUFF IZZUDDIN SHAH (32)

1948 - 63 I

AZLAN MUHIBUDDIN SHAH (34) 1984-

Raja Izzuddin Shah

Raja Iskandar Dzulkarnain

19

I

I

I

I I

/

JMBRAS VOL. 66

establish some "definite" rules based on the adat for succession. In the 1820's the children of Sultan Ahmaddin Shah (1786-1806) from his three marriages reached an understanding on the method that would accommodate theright of the ruler's children to succeed him.4o Since then the rotation system, whereby the throne was rotated among the three branches of the royal descendants based on the principle that the sultanate should passed laterally within these three branches and not vertically from father to son, came to be enforced. Roughly speaking, the rotation began at the death of the sultan (assuming that he represented the first branch) with the Raja Muda (representative of second branch) succeeded to the throne, the (Raja» Bendahara (representative of the third branch) moved up to occupy the office of the Raja Muda, his vacated office would then be given to the Raja di Hilir, (representative of the line of the predecessor of the deceased sultan) and finally the son of the deceased sultan entered the hierarchy of succession as the new Raja di Hilir .. 41 The system apparently aimed to reduce conflicts and crises which accompanied each succession following the vague and flexible practices of the traditional time, a situation that was made worse by the ever increasing numbers of the royal siblings all of whom could claim the right to succeed.

With the introduction of British colonial rule in the state, the rotation system was slowly but steadily weakened and eventually ignored. The assassination of Birch gave

the British a valid reason to interfere with the selection of the new ruler to replace the dethroned Sultan Abdullah. Though Raja Muda Yusuff eventually succeeded Abdullah,

ir was evident that he was not popular among the colonial officials.V They found a suitable successor in Raja Idris, whose claim to the office of Raja Muda was very weak under the rotation system. Thus began the claim of the colonial regime to have the last

say as to the "acceptability" of each Perak ruler to the throne.rfheir manipulation of the rotation system and their high-handed manner of brushing aside both the adat and the prerogative of the incumbent ruler, made mockery of the rotation system. The result was ... ' the total exclusion of the two branches from Ahmaddin Shah's second and third marriages-the Sultan Ali and Sultan Yusuf branches. Even within the line of descendants of the first marriage, the Sultan Abdullah sub-branch was completely excluded. The succession has since rotated almost exclusively within the Sultan Idris (1887-1916) sub-branch.P

40 The Sultan married Toh Puan Putih Laksamana Kuala Bider, Raja Tengah Bongsu, and Che Sapiah Tok Imam Malik. Al-Amin who respectively gave birth to his three sons Raja/Sultan Abdul Malik, Raja Inu and Raja Abdul Rahman, the founders of the royal branches of the rotation system.

41 Khoo Kay Kim explains that the office of Orang Kaya Bendahara was only upgraded to that of the royal Raja Bendahara in the reign of Sultan Iskandar (1752.] 765). The office ranked third in the succession hierarchy of Perak until "very recent times" when the title reverted to a commoner and the Raja di Hiiir is now third in the hierarchy. Khoo Kay Kim, "The Perak Sultanate: Ancient and Modem", JMBRAS, vol, LIX pt.l , 1986, p.9.

42 Gullick states that the only advantage of making Yusuf the Regent in 1877 was that the British could then find a suitable candidate to occupy the office of the heir apparent/Raja Muda of Perak, The main reason for the British to preserve the Malay sultanate was because "it offered a comfortable basis for asserting 'the utter inapplicability of any form of democratic or popular govemment'". Gullick, ]992, op.cit. p. 282. Raja Yusuff was only installed as sultan in 1886 and his reign lasted just about a: year.

20

v .

PART 2, 1993

Since Idris's succession, the struggle for the throne became more complicated and its outcome solely depended on the pleasure of the colonial authorities. Up to 1920, the British was adamant against the sub-branch of ex-Sultan Abdullah and refused to allow his sons to enter the succession sequence. Finally when Raja Chulan was appointed to the position of Raja di Hilir after being twice passed over, the appointment became a mere academic exercise since it was unlikely that Raja Chulan with his advancing age would outlive the three younger men who were his seniors in the succession hierarchy. The prime requirement that each candidate to the Perak throne had to be personally acceptable to the British regime in practice did away with the rationale of the rotation system, namely that the succession should passed laterally among the members of the three main branches of Sultan Ahmaddin Shah's male offsprings.

When Sultan Idris passed away in 1916 he was succeeded by his son Raja Abdul Jalil (1916-18) who was in 1918 succeeded by his brother Iskandar/" The succession then went almost alternately to the descendants of these two brothers. The present ruler of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, for example, is the direct male descendant of Sultan Abdul JaIil while his predecessor, Sultan Idris Iskandar was the son of Sultan Iskandar. The present Raja Muda of Perak and thus the heir apparent is the reigning Sultan's eldest son,

The role of the colonial regime in the Perak succession was taken over by the Perak Dewan Negara set up in 1948 in accordance with the State Constitution promulgated in the same year. Officially it has been this body that gives assent to such royal appointments.P In Perak, the right to succeed and the legitimacy of the ruler has since been underwritten by the Constitution and the Dewan Negara. The traditional claim based on the candidate's genealogy, personal ability, moral attainment, and the wish of

43 Only Sultan Abdul Aziz (1938-48) who was the Raja Muda to Sultan Iskandar Shah (1918-1938), broke this new and unofficial rotation arrangement. See the Genealogy of the Perak sultanate attached. It should be noted also that in the selection of the suitable candidate for the throne, the principles of primogeniture and anak gahara were not of prime significance. Raja Idris (Sultan Idrls 1887-1916) was a son of Raja Bendahara Iskandar and his minor wife who, according to Maxwell, was "a woman of the lower class named Alang Milu alias Ken Uda", W.E. Maxwell, "A History of Perak from Native Sources", JSBRAS, 14,1884.

44 Abdul Jalil had proposed in 1918 to appoint his brother Iskandar to the office of Raja Muda, his cousin Raja Abdul Aziz (of the same branch) Raja Bendahara, and his own son, Raja Yusuf, as Raja di Hilir. However his sudden death prevented this scheme from being executed. Gullick, 1992, op.cit., p.290.

45 Lately, it has been stated in response to the claim made by the representative of the descendants of two branches whose right to enter the succession hierarchy had been ignored and who now request a review of the royal appointments, that before the setting up of the Dewan Negara, the appointments of rulers and titled chiefs were made by the ruling sultan on the advice of the council of chiefs. In the present decisionmaking process, the members of the Dewan Negara take into account the nominee's background including his character and medical history before the nominee is appointed. New Straits Times, 21 and 22 April 1993]. It could well have been the statement made by the colonial regime in justifying their pre-1948 choices. As argued in this article, the final decision lay neither with the ruling sultan nor his council of

chiefs but the colonial regime who made certain that only those personally acceptable to the regime ever succeeded the Perak throne. The rotation system set up in the 1820's was totally disregarded long before the 1948. The Slate Constitution 1948 has in fact accepted the principle of acceptability practised by the British as the new criterion for the succession in Perak. It is a little too late for the resurrection of the rotation system. However, the crucial question that always comes with the principle of acceptability is acceptable to whom?

21

/

..

,

1

I

JMBRAS VOL. 66

the reigning sultan plays only a distant second to the personal acceptability of the candidate as defined by the Dewan Negara Perak.46 The erosion of the traditional adat on succession is complete. Perak has entered a new era as far as rulers and succession are concerned.

KELANTAN

Compared with Kedah and Perak, the sultanate of Kelantan under the Long Yunus dynasty was a newcomer.V Since the reign of Long Yunus, the question of succession had become the most destabilising factor in the socio-political development of Kelantan. In summary, Long Yunus (1776-1795), according to some local sources a member of the royal house of Pattani, became the ruler, the Yang Dipertuan, of Kelantan with the help of Sultan Mansur of Trengganu and in fact ruled the territory as a kind of "fief' to the Trengganu sultanate. It was not surprising then that when he died in 1795, Long Yunus did not name any of his sons to succeed him. Trengganu had in fact selected the young son of Sultan Mansur Shah, Tengku Muhammad, and the son-in-law of Long Yunus to become the Yang Dipertuan. The appointment was concurred by the state council, the majlis mesyuarat dan muafakat negeri.48 However, when Trengganu tried to consolidate its hold on Kelantan with the marriage of the Yang Dipertuan's daughter to another Trengganu prince, the Kelantan princes took to arm to oppose the rule of Tengku Muhammad. Long Muhammad and his brothers appealed for military assistance from Siam in their struggle to topple Tengku Muhammad and put one among themselves on the throne of Kelantan. It was with the military victory that/Long Muhammad was proclaimed the Yang Dipertuan in 1807 and restored the Long Yunus line to rule over Kelantan.

The Long Yunus dynasty being born out of military victory, it was not thus surprising that at practically every passing away of the Kelantan ruler there emerged a political and often armed struggle to settle the question of who should rule KeJantan.49

46 According to the 1948 Constitution (Section 7), the sovereign shall be gotten of the body and flesh of the 18th. Sultan of Perak i.e, Sultan Ahmaddin Shah. It also states that the ruler shall be the son, grandson or great grandson of that male line. It becomes unlawful to appoint someone who is not a descendant of the 18th Sultan as long as his descendants are living of sound mind and not maimed. However, the Constitution does not reinstate the rotation system. It is in fact most vague on this matter. Of the approved royal appointments at the succession to the throne of Sultan Azlan Shah in 1984. all the offices of the succession hierarchy-Raja Muda, Raja di Hilir, Raja Kecil Besar, Raja Ked! Sulong, Raja Kecil Tengah, and Raja Kecil Bongsu=-were held by the descendants of Sultan Abdul Malek Mansur Shah, eldest son of Sultan Abmaddin Shah.

47 For the origins and political development of Kelantan under the Long Yunus dynasty see Rahmat Saripan, op, cit.; Anker Rentse "History of Kelantan I" JMBRAS. vol. xn, pt.2, 1934; H. Marrier, "A Fragment of the History of Trengganu and Kelantan", JSBRAS. 72, 1916.

48 The acceptance of Tengku Muhammad by the Kelantan ruling elites including Long Yunus' own sons was reflected in the Hikayat Sen' Kelantan, which states "pada masa itu tiada siapa-siapalah patut melainkan anak Raja Terengganu itu yang lebih patutnya", However, Ringkasan C etera Kelantan states that the role of Tengku Muhammad was in fact opposed by Long Yunus' children who though were forced by circumstances to acquiesce to the appointment were very much unhappy with it. Quoted in Rahmat.op.cit., p.53.

22

PART 2, I(N~

i

/

23

/

..

1MBRAS VOL. 66

The Kelantan sultanate was born out of contest of power and its ruling elites often resorted to the use of physical force and outsiders' assistance to decide the outcome of their conflict and rivalry. The succession issue thus opened Kelantan to both domestic and foreign interference and manipulation which resulted in the ever political instability and squabblings among its ruling elites. The civil war of 1838-41 is an outstanding example of Kelantan' s exercise in self-destruction. 50

From the reign of Sultan Muhammad II (1838-1886) and up to the reign of Sultan Muhammad IV (1899-1920), Kelantan came under the strong influence of Siam, whose suzerain power was recognised .by each of the rulers. It was the suzerain power of Siam that kept the succession squabbles in Kelantan out of the harm way. Siamese recognition of the legitimacy of the ruler and Bangkok's opposition to the use of force as a means to solve the succession conflict proved an effective deterrent among the Kelantan chieftains. Nonetheless, conflicts and rivalries among the members of the Long Yunus dynasty continued unabated. There seemed at a glance to be no rules nor guidelines concerning the right to succeed in Kelantan apart from the fact that the candidate had to be a member of the ruling house. However, under a careful scrutiny, various native sources reveal sufficiently that the succession "rules" in Kelantan more or less followed the traditional adat practised in other Malay sultanate, with the exception of Negeri Sembilan. Tengku Muhammad, though was chosen by Sultan Mansur Shah of Trengganu, took pains to gain the consensus of the Kelantan chiefs to rule. Long Muhammad himself was selected by his brothers and other chiefs to ascend the throne after Tengku Muhammad had been driven out of Kelantan. More.evident was the case of Long Zainal/Jenal (1836-1838) whose claim to the throne based on his being the capable brother of the deceased ruler was challenged by his nephew, Long Senik Mulut Merah the adopted son and chosen heir of Muhammad 1. The majlis mesyuarat dan muafakat decided in favour of Long Zainal who then assumed the administration of the state. A1most similar to the path taken by Tunku Pangeran of Kedah in the early nineteenth century, Senik Mulut Merah decided to use force against his uncle and legitimate ruler. To ensure the success of his mission Senile Mulut Merah solicited Siam's support. By 1838 he replaced Long Zainal as ruler and was so confirmed by both the majlis mesyuarat dan muafakat and Siam. The subsequent history of Kelantan up to 1909 likewise confmns the practice that to become the rightful ruler of Kelantan, the candidate

49 According [0 one Chinese source, a profound and accurate observation was made concerning the Kelantan

succession problem, "At the death of [he King, either a son or a younger brother succeeded him. But.; it is necessary to wait and see on whom God's choice, would fall ... "Wang Gungwu, "An Early Chinese Visitor to Kelantan" Malaya in History, vol. VI, I, 1960, p. 33.

50 The civil war broke out in 1837 after the death of Long Muhammad I. Both factions sought the support and ,. approval of Bangkok. The struggle first involved Long Zainal/Raja Banggul, the successor of Muhammad

I, on the .one side, and Long Senile Mulut Merah and his brothers on the other. After Senile Mulut Merah's success in driving out his uncle Long Zainal, the dynastic struggle continued with Long Zainal, Tuan Besar and Senik Mulut Merahs brother Tuan Kota fighting against the authority of Senik Mulut Merah/Muhammad II who now had the full support of Siam. To strengthen the position of Sultan Muhammad II, King Rama ill of Siam moved most of his main rivals out of Kelantan and settled them in the Seven Malay Principalities. After 1841 Muhammad II reigned supreme in Kelantan. When he died in 1886, he was able to choose his successor without any challenge from his relatives. His eldest son Long Ahmad became the Yang Dipertuan. His succession to the throne was in fact the only one free from any squabble or conflict.

24

/

PART 2, [993

would have to be the recognised choice of these two august bodies. A claimant's meritorious claim was mainly based on his personal ability to deal with the various domestic challenges and his being acceptable to Bangkok.

Kelantan demonstrated with clarity that in the process of ruler-selection, the principles of primogeniture and anak gahara had practically no place. Sultan Ahmad (1886-9), the first raja of the Long Yunus line who was also the eldest son of the ruler, came to the throne nearly a century after the the reign of Long Yunus, the founder of the dynasty. One suspects that one of the main reasons for this smooth transfer of power was the fact that the civil war and the Siamese policy of shipping all the potential troublemakers out of Kelantan in the 1840's, had weakened the opposition to the sultan and his sons to a near impotent level. But Sultan Ahmad's large family soon re-introduced the familiar free-for-all contest for the throne. It was back to the traditional adat of personal ability and the approval of the majlis mesyuarat and the King of Siam. Sultan Muhammad III, Sultan Mansur and Sultan Muhammad IV, all facing stiff opposition from a horde of claimants, came to the throne by this time-honoured process.

When Muhammad III (1889-1891) died, a bitter struggle for the throne broke out among his numerous brothers who insisted, and were so accepted, that their right to succeed preceded that of Muhammad Ill's eldest son, Tuan Long Senik. The right of the latter was thus passed over. Mansur, Muhammad Ill's capable brother, was selected by the council and approved by Bangkok as the new raja of Kelantan." There was no doubt that Mansur ruled with a finn hand and thus caused the frustrated members of the royal family to be even more irate with him. The atmosphere was so charged that when Sultan Mansur became ill in early 1900, despatch was sent to Bangkok informing the latter of the impending outbreak of trouble in the event of the ruler's death. Mansur himself had earlier tried to forestall the succession crisis at the end of his reign. The ruler had come to an arrangement with his nephew, Tuan Long Senik, whereby Tuan Long Senik was appointed the heir-apparent to the throne with the title of Raja Kelantan.V In return Tuan Long Senik threw in his support on the side of the Sultan against the opposition of the coalition of Mansur's brothers and other relatives. When Mansur passed away in February 1900, Tuan Long Senik as expected succeeded him. However, the struggle for the throne broke out with such intensity and bitterness. The main claimants were Tuan Long J a afar or Tengku Petra, the only surviving son of Muhammad II (Mulut Merah)

51

It was a belief among the contemporary ruling elites that the Siamese authorities hand-picked Mansur

because he was able to bribe them more than any other candidates. Thai sources reveal that Bangkok recognized Mansur because of the belief that he was sympathetic to Thai interests in Kelantan and that he would be able to control his unruly siblings. Mansur proved them correct. See Mohamed bin Nik Mohd. Salleh, "Kelantan in Transition: 1891-1910" in W.R. Roff, ed., Kelantan " Religion, Society and Politics ill a Malay State, Kuala Lumpur, OUP, 1974, chap.2.; Kobkua Suwannathat-Plan, Thai-Malay Relations, op.cit, pp.167-172, and "The Quiet Affairs in Siamese-Malay Relations in the Nineteenth Century",JEBAT,

521985, for example of how unruly Mansur's brothers and relatives could be.

The ruler of Kelantan since the establishment of the Long Yunus dynasty had adopted the title of Yang Dipertuan and later Raja Kelantan, the latter considered to be lower than the former, For example, at the . beginning of his reign Tuan Long Senik/Sultan Muhammad IV was compelled by his uncles to styled .• himself only as Raja Kelantan. It was Sultan Mansur who began to style himself as Sultan and made the ... title Raja Kelantan the title of the heir apparent.

25

/

f '

JMBRAS VOL. 66

who based his claim on being the oldest and the most senior member of the royal family; the brothers of the late Sultan on the ground that the throne should go to one of them and not to the nephew of the deceased ruler who had already been bypassed in 1891; and Tuan Long Senik himself who was the designated heir.

Though Tuan Long Senik: was the chosen heir of Mansur and he had the support of the council, it was clear that he was no match to the political pressure and attack targeted at him by the more senior members of the royal family. To even out the score, Bangkok sent Phraya Sukhum, the Superintendent-Commissioner of Monthan Nakhon to help settle the succession conflict. Sukhum proceeded to threaten the uncles with imprisonment in Bangkok if they ever attempted to cause trouble in Kelantan after he left. 53 He then proclaimed Tuan Senik Siam's. reco gnized ruler of Kelantan. Without this blatant threat, it was most unlikely that the uncles would acquiesce to Tuan Senik/Sultan Muhammad IV ascending to the throne. Even then Sultan Muhammad IV was soon compelled to reach a compromise with his powerful and troublesome uncles whereby he allowed them practically all rights and privileges demanded. It appeared Muhammad IV was but the ruler in name after this compromise.l"

After Kelantan was handed to Great Britain in 1909, the succession issue became better organized. The general rule that the candidate had to be personally acceptable to the British regime was also practised in Kelantan, However, the ruling house or the state was fortunate in that it had not produced the kind of royal offsprings close to throne which was objectionable to the colonial regime. The incumbent Sultan and his council were thus regarded as the two rightful institutions deciding who' should or should not become the ruler of Kelantan, Sultan Muhammad IV had tried to reduce the squabbles within the royal family which had made the first half of his reign a true nightmare. In order to ensure his children's chance of succeeding him, the Sultan came to an arrangement with his younger brother Tengku Zainal Abidin whom he had early in his reign appointed Raja Muda, In return for the latter's surrendering the office of Raja Muda to Muhammad IV's eldest son, Tengku Ismail, Tengku Zainal Abidin was given a new title of Raja Dewa, a kind of senior statesman, and was compensated for his and his descendants' perpetual loss of hereditary inheritance. With this, the succession in 1920 became a matter of course as Raja Muda Tengku Ismail was named by his father Sultan Muhammad IV his heir to the throne, The new Sultan was also accorded assent by the state council.

A somewhat similar event occurred during the reign of Sultan Ibrahim (1944- 1960) when the ruler decided to change his Raja Muda from Tengku Indera Petra his eldest son to Tengku Yahya Petra his younger son. The former was asked to denounce his and his descendants' right to the Kelantan throne which he apparently willingly did as asked. The title of Raja Muda was then conferred upon the new heir, Tengku Yahya Petra. Sultan Ibrahim's desire to change the heir to the throne received the consent of his council and the Kelantan chiefs. To clarify the matter further, the Sultan had the title of the heir to the throne changed from that of Raja Muda to that of Tengku Mahkota in 1948. Tengku Yahya Petra became the first Tengku Mahkota and proceeded to become sultan on the merit of his being the choice of Sultan Ibrahim and of the state council of succession. Traditionally speaking, he was the rightful and legitimate ruler of Kelantan, His appointments to the office of heir-apparent and to the sultanate were legally

26

..

r

/

PART 2, 1993

approved by the proper authorities of the state, namely the reigning sultan and the council of succession.

The above summary of the succession practices in KeJantan points to the fact that during the traditional period the succession issue was mostly decided by the rule of strength which individual claimants had at their disposal, Since the setting-up of the colonial rule, it was the prerogative of the incumbent ruler to select his heir in consultation with the state council, Meanwhile the basic requirement for a claimant remained unchanged, namely the membership of the Kelantan ruling house. The incumbent sultan and his state council have since become the ultimate reference to the succession selection. This practice has not changed. The last sultan to exercise this prerogative with the support and consent of the state council of succession was Sultan Yahya Petra when he named his only fully-royal son, Tengku Ismail Petra, Tengku Mahkota and his successor.

Closing Note

Though there existed variations to the adat concerning succession in the various Malay sultanates, fundamentally it subscribed to a no-hard-and-fast rule such as the most publicised rule of primogeniture orland the right of the fully royal prince. Precisely because of its vague and flexible approaches to the succession issue, the Malay sultanate in the peninsula experienced numerous difficulties arisen from the succession problem. One can go so far as to state that succession was in fact the main cause of the political instability in each and every sultanate during the traditional period. Conversely, the emergence of the modem sultanate very much influenced by Western values and ways of doing things, has brought with it some definite solution to the problem. By" the end of World War TI, it became clear that the prerogatives over the succession question have been accorded to the two most influential and powerful institutions in each state: the incumbent ruler and the state councilor a new body set up to take over its function such as the state Dewan Negara or the Dewan Undangan. The consent of these two bodies is required in deciding the right and legitimacy of individual claimants. No other institution, the principle of "might is right" excepted, has ever been accorded jurisdiction over the question of succession in the Malay sultanate.

53 Sukhum made it clear to the uncles that they would never be able to escape the punishment meted by Bangkok in the case they caused trouble in Kelantan."Even if they escape to the White man's territory, they will not be safe from Siamese authority. The Government there would detain them for Bangkok. it would be so since the Siamese authority have done that for [the British]."

R.5, M.62/1549, voI2., Sukhum to Damrong, 2 March R.S. 118/1900, quoted in Kobkua SuwannathatPian, 1988, op.cit., p.172. Bangkok also sent the gunboat and troops to strengthen Muhammad IV's position.

54 W.A. Graham, Kelantan Annual Report, August 1903·May 1905, Bangkok, National Library, 1905.

27