Plan B: Paper 1
MA in Asian Studies (Southeast Asia focus)
Committee members: Dr. Barbara Andaya (chair)
Dr. Sun-Ki Chai and Dr. Peter Xenos
The Census and Ethnicity in Colonial Malaya and the Philippines
Introduction
Southeast Asia’s colonial past played a major role in developing ethnic awareness and
creating its prevailing ethnic mosaic. The census developed under the colonial period
was a powerful tool in creating ethnic categories and shaping ethnic boundaries. Tishkov
(2005) states that censuses have played a crucial role in the construction of identity in
modern states, and in recent years there has been increasing interest in using censuses as
a tool for analysis.
In writing about the Philippines’ census in 1942, Millegan (1942:79) states that
“… census material represents one basis for an assessment of the effects of American
administration on the peoples and economy of the Philippines. Such a study compared
with studies of the Dutch East Indies, other Far Eastern areas, and India would be of
value in evaluating the social and economic effects of various types of colonial
administration.” While there have been efforts in analyzing the census and its
contribution towards the development of ethnicity in Malaysia, and also comparative
analysis of censuses within the British commonwealth, there has yet to be any
comparative work of censuses in different countries in Southeast Asia (Hirschman 1987;
Christopher 2005).
1
This paper attempts to work towards bridging this gap in literature and will be analyzing
censuses in colonial Malaya and the Philippines. It will be discussing the similarities and
differences of British and American colonial rule in Malaysia and the Philippines in the
creation of ethnic categories in the census and in particular, address the question of
“What was the major ideological influence behind the creation of these ethnic
categories?”
Reflections on Colonial Southeast Asia
Writing about colonial differences in Southeast Asia in the late 1920s, Hayden
commented on the different allegiance patterns in the region. Under Dutch colonial rule,
the 48,000,000 inhabitants of the Dutch East Indies were subjects of Queen Whilhelmina
in the Netherlands. Philippines’ 11,500,000 inhabitants were ‘nationals’, but not citizens
of the United States and in British Malaya, most of the 3,350,000 people owed their
allegiance to the Malay sultans and not the British monarchy (Hayden 1927: 327).
However it was not the allegiance patterns that captured Hayden’s attention but rather the
contrast in population diversity that existed between British Malaya and the Philippines,
and the level of economic development that was taking place in British Malaya. He
states that “The traveler who is familiar with the Philippines is sharply impressed by two
features of British rule in the Malay peninsula. He realizes at once that the manual labor
behind the marvelous development which is going on there is not furnished by native
Malays. Everywhere he sees the strange, tall, ebony-black, narrow faced Tamil, or
Kling, as he is locally called.”(Hayden 1927: 327). He mentions the increase in the
2
Indian population from 267,000 in 1911 to 472,000 to 1921, and goes on to state, “Even
more numerous and important that the picturesque Tamils are the Chinese” (Hayden
1927): 328. The Chinese population increased from 916,000 in 1911 to 1,173,000 in
1921. He quotes Dr. R.O. Winstedt of the Malayan Civil Service attributing the
economic progress in British Malaya to the Chinese, “Without the energy and brains of
the Chinese population British Malaya would not have become what it is today”(Hayden
1927: 328). Hayden contends that migration was a necessity for economic development,
and it was “ … chiefly out of deference to the wishes of the Filipino themselves, Asiatic
labor has been excluded from the Islands.”(Hayden 1927: 328).
This diversity was a common feature in the British colonies and in the Dutch East Indies.
Furnivall (1956), in comparing colonial Burma with the Dutch East Indies, states, “In
Burma, as in Java, probably the first thing that strikes the visitor is the medley of peoples
– European, Chinese, Indian and native. It is in the strictest sense a medley, for they mix
but do not combine” (Furnivall 1956: 304).
While Hayden (1927: 327,331) acknowledged the native population in British Malaya,
the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies as “the human race known as the Malays”
going as far as describing the Philippines as “American Malaya”, (Hayden 1927: 327,
331), the British and the Americans adopted very different ways in classifying their
populations due to different colonial practices and ideological thinking.
3
British Malaya: Dealing with Diversity
British colonial practices resulted in a high level of migration creating Malaysia’s present
day plural society. Colonial immigration policies, which needed labor for tin mining and
agriculture plantations resulted in a huge influx of immigrants. The large scale migration
which took place from 1850 - 1920 contributed towards changing the demographic
composition of the country (Hirschman and Suan-Pow 1979:2). In 1911, the Malayan
Peninsula had a population size of only 2.3 million. However by 1947, this had doubled
to 4.9 million with the growth being entirely due to immigration (Hirschman 1980:104105). Migrant workers came from China, India, with the third largest migrant group
coming from the then Dutch East Indies islands of Java and Sumatra (Kaur 2004:1). In
discussing the census of British Malaya in 1947, Vlieland (1949: 59) states that “The
dominant factors in the growth or decline of this concourse are not births and deaths but
immigration and emigration. Only a comparatively small portion of the whole is in any
sense a settled population, while the fraction which can reasonably be called
‘indigenous’ is very small indeed.”
British colonial administrators had to deal with the complex diversity that existed in their
colonies and faced a formidable task trying to categorize the population. Christopher
(2005) states that the volume on Burma in 1921 recorded 20 separate races and 190
subdivisions. In preparing census classifications, Hirschman (1987:559) states that
British colonial authorities undertook the task of formulating a set of mutually exclusive
and exhaustive ethnic categories to classify the population, changing them as
circumstances changed.
4
In his analysis of censuses across the British Commonwealth, Christopher (2005: 104),
observed that “racial classification has been an integral part of the majority of colonial
and even post-colonial censuses within the territories of the former British overseas
empire”. He states that classifications sought to solve a number of problems created by
the whole colonial project (Christopher 2005: 103). Migration changed the composition
of the population and thus it was important to be able to distinguish between the
indigenous population and the immigrant communities. It was also necessary to maintain
the boundary between the colonizer and the colonized, and defining the boundary for
being a European was essential.
In the Philippines, three population censuses were carried out by American colonial
administrators, the first on March 2, 1903, followed by the second on December 31, 1918
and the final one on January 1, 1939, prior to independence (Vargas, Mills et al. 1940:xi).
Peninsula Malaysia in contrast, under the British colonial period undertook its first
census exercise in 1871 in the Straits Settlements, which were the port cities of Penang,
Malacca and Singapore. Another four censuses were taken in the Straits Settlements in
1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911. Two censuses were taken in the Federated Malaya States in
1901 and 1911, and in 1921, a unified census was taken for all of British Malaya which
included the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, and the Straits Settlements.
Another three censuses were carried out in 1931, 1947 and 1957, prior to independence.
Putting aside population censuses that were carried out at the individual state level,
British colonial authorities conducted three times as many census exercises compared
with the Americans. The regularity at which the censuses were undertaken by the British
5
make tracking changes in ethnic categories easier. This is harder to do when dealing with
the Philippine censuses.
While acknowledging that racial differences were apparent in the diverse British colonial
societies, colonial administrators were given no guidelines on how to go about classifying
the population. Within the British Commonwealth, the Indian census implemented in the
early 1870s, became the model for other British colonies. The scale of its operation and
the complexity of numeration shadowed all other censuses, as the following line from the
Burmese census (part of British India) of 1872: 27 states “there is possibility no country
in the world where the inhabitants are more varied in race, custom and language than
those of Burma” (quoted in Furnivall, 1956).
The term ‘race’ appeared for the first time in the appendix of the 1891 Straits Settlement
census. While the appendix made reference to the term ‘race’, the 1891 census utilized
the term ‘Nationality’ when describing the various sections of the population and ‘tribe’
when discussing the various Chinese dialect groups (Merewether 1892): 11). This
continued in the 1901 census and the term ‘race’ was officially used from the 1911
census onwards, except in the 1947 census where the term community was utilized
instead (Hirschman 1987: 561, 577). As seen in the following statement by the Malayan
census superintendent. “ … It is, in fact, impossible to define the sense in which the term
‘Race’ is used for census purposes; it is in reality, a judicious blend, for practical ends,
of the ideas of geographic and ethnographic origin, political allegiance, and racial and
social affinities and sympathies. The difficulties of achieving anything like a scientific or
6
logically consistent classification is enhanced by the fact that most Oriental peoples have
themselves no clear conception of race, and commonly regard religion as the most
important, if not the determinant element” (Vlieland, 1932). Racial classification used in
the census included a fluid mixture of ethnicities, languages, nationalities and religions,
changing over time but always ranked in order of political importance (Anderson 2002:
164, Hirschman 1987: 562).
The first Strait Settlements census in 1871 clearly reflects the ethnic diversity in British
Malaya. The 1871 census showed a listing of twenty-seven categories, with Europeans
and Americans, Armenians, Jews list at the top, followed by Eurasians, and an
alphabetically listing of twenty-three other populations, which included Chinese, Malays,
Manilamen, Hindoos, among those mentioned (Hirschman 1987: 562). This similar
pattern continued in the 1881 census, with the addition of the category of the British
Military and Chinese dialect groups. The 1891 census showed a marked increase in the
diversity of the population since 1881, as seen below:
3. The total increase in European and Americans, including the Floating Population,
Military and Prisoners is 3,106 or 89.1%. Taking the Resident Population only, the
total increase is 1,588, or 95.8%
4. The increases in other Nationalities are as follows:Eurasians,
…
…
…
153 , or 2.2%
Chinese,
…
…
…
53,662, or 30.7%
Malays and other Natives of the Archipelago,
18,604, or 9.5%
Tamils and other Natives of India,
12,659, or 30.0%
Other Nationalities,
774, or 26.3%
Source: Merewether 1892: 1
The 1891 census is noted for making major structural changes in the classification of the
population by introducing six major headings, which were ‘Europeans and Americans’,
7
‘Eurasians’, ‘Chinese’, ‘Malays and other Natives of the archipelago’, ‘Tamils and other
Natives of India’ and ‘Other Races’. Forty-eight different ethnicities were sorted under
these six major headings (Merewether 1892, Hirschman 1987:571). While no
explanation is given in the census as to the creation of these heading, it can perhaps be
assumed that the increase in population size and diversity probably required a better
method for analysis and presenting data.
Categorizing the Filipinos: Applying Prevailing Racial Attitudes from the
United States Continent
In contrast, the Philippines faced no similar large-scale migration as in British Malaya.
Filipinos made up close to 99 percent of the population in the censuses of 1903 and 1918
(Buencamino and De Los Santos 1921: 34). The Chinese made up the second largest
group at about 0.6 percent of the population. The Philippines was described as being
largely homogenous in terms of place of birth and thus American census administrators
did not face the same dilemma that British census administrators did (Sanger, Gannett et
al. 1905: 42, Buencamino and De Los Santos 1921: 34).
Also in contrast to the British colony, where the census in United Kingdom was silent on
the issue of race classification throughout the colonial period, and only as late as 1991
was it initiated (Christopher 2005: 103), racial classification had been a standard item in
the decennial census of the United States. Color was utilized as system of racial
classification in the United States census of 1850, with the categories being ‘white’,
‘black’ and ‘mulatto’, and in 1870, ‘American Indian’ and ‘Chinese’ were added
8
(Hirschman, Alba et al. 2000: 382). By 1890, the need for a precise biological definition
of race resulted in the inclusion of categories based on degrees of African ancestry –
‘mulatto’, ‘quadroon’ and ‘octoroon’, and in 1900, the American Indian population was
also classified in accordance to ‘white blood’ (none, ½ , ¼ , 1/8) (Hirschman, Alba et al.
2000: 382).
It is then of no surprise that the Philippines census reflected a similar form of racial
categorization. The term ‘race’ was utilized from the first census onwards, and defined
according to color. When discussing racial classifications, the chapter in the 1903 census
used the term ‘color’ while the 1918 and 1939 censuses used the term ‘race’ (Sanger,
Gannett et al. 1905:44, Buencamino and De Los Santos 1921: 31, Vargas, Mills et al.
1940: xii). Nevertheless, the racial distinctions continued to refer to color, with ‘brown’,
‘yellow’, ‘black’, ‘white’ and ‘mixed’ being the official categories. Figure 1 illustrates
the categories used.
Figure 1: Racial Classification in the Philippines
1903
Color
Brown
Mixed
Yellow
White
Black
1918
Race
Brown
Half-breed
Yellow
White
Negro and Negrito
1939
Race
Brown
Mixed (mestizos)
Yellow
White
Negro and Negritos
Source: Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905: 44, Buencamino and De Los Santos 1921: 34,
Vargas, Mills et al. 1940: xii
From the narrative provided in the report, it is possible to deduce which ethnicities were
assigned to which color. The opening line of the chapter on color in the 1903 census
9
states that, “With respect to color, the people of the Philippine Islands showed very
nearly as great homogeneity as with respect to birthplace. Ninety-nine per cent of the
Christian population belonged to the brown race.”(Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905: 44),
indicating that Filipinos were classified as brown. “The yellow race included the Chinese
and Japanese” (Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905: 44), no description was given on what
constituted white, and the only reference to blacks was “there were a few Negroes in the
islands, discharged soldiers of Negro regiments” (Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905: 44). The
1918 census replaced black with Negro and also included the Negritos in this category.
Early 20th century concerns with miscegenation were also reflected in the report:
“Only two-tenths of 1 percent were reported as being of mixed color. This statement,
however, may fairly be questioned, as there is little doubt that the proportion of mixture
of races was much greater. … Much of this mixture, however dates back to past
generations, and it is presumable that the present inhabitants have no knowledge of their
ancestors” (Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905: 44).
While racial hierarchy according color would have been a common feature in colonial
societies, having much significance in everyday interactions, official classifications
according to color was never included in any of the censuses carried out in the Malay
Peninsula. Emphasis in the earlier censuses was on nationality, the European population
was always classified under the heading of ‘Europeans and Americans’ or according to
nationality, never as ‘white’. The Chinese population was classified as ‘Chinese’, not
‘yellow’ and subdivided into ‘tribes’ based on dialects spoken. (There were references to
10
color in the narratives on the population, but never beyond this.) A clumsy attempt at
classifying the population according to color appears in 1911 in an academic review of
censuses throughout the British colony (Baines 1911). The headings below were taken
from his table listing 31 colonies, which included separate listings for the Straits
Settlements, Malay States, Siam States and North Borneo.
Figure 2: Table I: Colour, per 10,000 of population
White
Mixed
African
Black
Asiatic
Brown
Malay
American Polynes.
Yellow
Red
Source: Baines 1911: 397
In addition to the color categories utilized by the Americans in the Philippines, Baines
(1911) included ‘red’, referring specifically to the native American population in Canada.
Though the heading referred to color, the ethnic category of Malay and racial category of
Polynesian were also included. Similar with the Americans, the Chinese population was
listed under ‘yellow’, but in an interesting depart from American practice, the
‘indigenous’ or non-migrant populations in the Straits Settlements, Malay States, Siam
States and North Borneo were listed as ‘Malay’ and not ‘brown’. The ‘brown’ category
was mainly confined to the Indian population who lived in India and also as immigrants
in the other colonies. It can possibly be assumed that the British would have classified
the Filipino population under ‘Malay’, instead of ‘brown’. It is arguable that this
difference in classification could be due to the need to differentiate between a wider
range of people in the British colonies compared to the American colonies.
11
In addition to social Darwinism theories which influenced racial classification in the
Philippines, American census administrators were also influenced by their contact with
the native American population. This was mostly due to the reference made by the
Spaniards to the natives. Finin (1991: 38) states that the lowland ‘natives’ in the
Philippines were referred to as Indios. This was translated into the English as “Indians”,
suggesting the same ‘type’ of people found in the United States continent.
The United States’ policy with the native American was used extensively in discussions
dealing with its annexation of the Philippines. Arguments justifying the annexation of
the Philippines were always closely related with the acceptability of the United States
colonizing native American territories, thus resulting in a perceived close association of
the native American with the Filipino. In a platform dealing with native American
affairs, almost half of the discussions referred to the United States overseas territories,
that in 1904, the official title of the conference was changed to Lake Mohonk Conference
of the Indian and Other Dependent Peoples (William 1980: 814).
From the discussions that took place, it was clear that the Filipino and the native
American were the same people. In responding to anti-imperialists arguments that the
annexation of the Philippines would automatically result in Filipinos gaining access to
citizenship in the United States, the Indian precedent was quoted as an example of
American sovereignty over an area did not automatically confer citizenship over subject
inhabitants (Williams, 1980: 819). As stated by a University of Chicago political
12
scientist in 1899, “uncivilized nations under tribal relations [in the Philippines] would
occupy the same status precisely as our own Indians. They are, in fact, Indians and the
fourteenth amendment does not make citizens of Indians” (Williams, 1980: 19).
Beyond arguments for similarities in legal relations between the United States with the
native Americans and Filipinos, imperialists also saw behavioral similarities. Similar
terms used for the native Americans such as ‘savage’, “barbarous’, ‘uncivilized’, were
applied to the Filipinos, to justify annexation. (Williams, 1980).
The prevailing ideology was as with the native Americans, the Filipinos will benefit from
American rule and its ‘civilizing mission’. Finin (1991) draws attention to the various
debates had on the United States continent on how best to ‘civilize’ the native Americans,
and how this could be translated to similar policies appropriate for the Filipinos. The
opinion that Filipinos were basically similar to the native Americans was made apparent
in the following speech by Theodore Roosevelt:
“Every argument that can be made for the Filipinos could be made for the Apaches;
every word that can be said for Aguinaldo could be said for Sitting Bull….As peace,
order, and prosperity followed our expansion over the lands of the Indians, so they will
follow us in the Philippines” (Theodore Roosevelt, 1899 quoted in Finin 1991: 39).
As the native Americans were classified into tribes, so were the Filipinos. Instructions
given to American administrators in the Philippines were to utilize the United States’
governance of American Indians as their model to govern the Filipinos (Sullivan 1991:
13
141). According with President McKinley’s instructions, the ‘uncivilized tribes’ should
“adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North
American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government” (quoted in Finin
1991: 47).
The perceived close association between the native Americans and the Filipinos found its
way into the 1903 census, in the section on dealings with methods of enumeration:
“These wild people, entered on Schedule No.1, were found living in the same towns with
the civilized people, many of them as servants in houses of civilized Filipinos, and were
recorded by the regular enumerators in the same manner as North American Indians
under similar conditions have always been enumerated (Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905:55).
While the British applied their knowledge acquired from their many colonies in their
efforts to classify an ethnically diverse population, the Americans in turn had a rich past
history of dealing with the ‘other’ in the United States. Similar racial classification
utilized towards the African-Americans found its ways into the Philippine census. United
States policy towards the native American also had a strong influence in affecting the
way Filipinos were viewed and classified.
Religion: Christianity and the Civilizing Mission
In both colonies, religion was an important boundary marker in the attempt to classify the
population. However in both countries, considerable attention was paid to the non-
14
dominant religions of the population. In the Philippines, being non-Christian consumed
more of the census administrator’s attention rather than being Christian.
The Philippines census of 1903 had two basic classifications for Filipinos, ‘civilized’ or
‘wild’, with the adoption of Christianity being the major deciding factor. As clearly
described in the census report, “The civilized people, with the exception of those of
foreign birth, were practically all adherents of the Catholic Church, while of the peoples
classified as wild, a large proportion, probably more than two-fifths, were
Mohammedans in religion and were well known in the islands of Moros. The remaining
three-fifths belonged to various tribes differing from one another in degrees of
barbarism” (Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905: 15). Thus the distinction in 1903 was Christian
and ‘civilized’, or non-Christian and ‘wild’, with the ‘civilized’ population making up
about 92 percent of the population.
In analyzing the term ‘wild’, Vergara (1995) argues that translation from Spanish, the
language used in the census, to English, resulted in a change of meaning. ‘Civilized’
replaced ‘civilizado’ which retained similar meaning and ‘wild’ replaced ‘infiel’ (Vergara
1995: 48). A closer translation would have been pagan, rather than wild.
While the census recognized that “With the exception of the Negritos and the people of
foreign birth, all the inhabitants of these islands are believed to be Malays” (Sanger,
Gannett et al. 1905: 16), it went on to differentiate the population, categorizing them into
24 tribes.
15
Vergara (1995:50) argues that the purpose of listing the 24 tribes was to illustrate the
diversity in the Philippines and to uphold the common American colonial discourse at the
time of the Filipinos being incapable of governing themselves. The discourse of the
Filipinos being unable to govern themselves was based on the biological inferiority
argument, as Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana declared, referring to the Filipinos as,
“a barbarous race modified by three centuries of contact with a decadent race (the
Spanish)” (quoted in Go 2004: 39). It was also based on the diversity argument
advocated by Worchester in 1914 that, “… the great mass of Filipinos do not constitute
‘a people’ in the sense in which that word is understood in the United States. … They
cannot be reached as a whole, and they do not respond as a whole” (quoted in Vergara
1995: 50).
Nevertheless, it was believed that with the spread of education and guidance from the
colonial government, tribal distinctions will disappear and the Filipinos will be ready for
self-government (Vergara 1995: 52, Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905). The 1918 census
dropped the term ‘civilized’ and ‘wild’, and used Christian and non-Christian instead.
Vergara (1995: 53) observed a reduction in the categories and argued that this was to
promote the illusion of homogeneity and the success of the civilizing mission.
However while there was a reduction in the categories for Christian tribes, there was an
explosion in the categories mentioned for non-Christian tribes. From 16 tribes mentioned
in the 1903 census, the 1918 census listed a total of 35 non-Christian tribes, categorized
16
under the racial categories of pygmies, Malays and Indonesians. Figure 3 compares the
categories (minus the foreign nationals) mentioned in the 1903 and 1918 censuses.
Figure 3: Tribes listed in the 1903 and 1918 Census of the Philippines Islands
1903
Christian
Visayan
Tagalog
Ilocano
Bicol
Pangasinan
Cagayan
Pampangan
Zambalan
1918
Christian
Non-Christian
Malay
Indonesian
Igorots
Bukidnons
Tinggians / Itnegs
Gadnans
Bontocs
Mandayas
Ifugaos
Manobos
Lanaos / Maranaos
Bagobos
Maguindanaos
Bajaos
Samals
Isamals
Sangils
Kalingas
Sulus
Kulamans
Yakans
Subanums
Unclassified Moros
Tagacaolos
Bilaans
Tagbanuas
Pygmies
Mangyan
Taburais
Batak
Ilongots
Mamanuas
Atas
Aetas of Luzon
Apayaos
Aetas of Visayas
Tagabilils
Mangguangans
Non-Christian
Subanos
Negrito
Tiruray
Moro
Igorot
Bukidnon
Mandaya
Manobo
Bagobo
Bilan
Tagbanua
Ilongot
Ata
Tagabili
Mangyan
Batak
Source: Sanger, Gannett et al. 1905, Buencamino and De Los Santos 1921
In 1901, the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes was established and tasked with ‘reporting
on the conditions of the Muslim and pagan tribes, recommending legislation for their
governance, and accumulating knowledge of Philippine ethnology (Sullivan 1991: 142).
17
This led to an explosion of studies on the non-Christian tribes reflecting the similar
phenomena in the Pacific Islands, in which the epistemology and understanding of the
Pacific was very much a western cultural construction. Howe’s (2000:2) reference to the
Oceania as ‘a major Western ideological testing ground’, clearly also applied to the
Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century. The Philippines was seen as “an ethnic
museum, in which we can study the human race in its manifold forms” (Fred W.
Atkinson, First General Superintendent of Education, quoted in Vergara 1995: 52).
This colonial gaze on the people of Philippines resulted in a creation of ‘tribal’ groups,
affiliations which Finin (1991: 39) argues, was not how residents saw themselves.
In fact Finin’s review of the documents and discussion relating to the classification of
these non-Christian tribes showed differences in the forms of classification among the
anthropologists studying them. David Barrow, then chief of the Bureau of Non-Christian
Tribes considered language as the main indicator in defining a tribe (Finin 1991: 54).
Dean Worchester, Secretary of Interior of the Philippines in 1901, who had spent much
time in the course of his career in the Philippines studying its people, utilized physical
characteristics and practices of war and dancing, as more important indicators rather than
language (Finin 1991: 60).
As seen earlier, the 1918 census developed the categories of the non-Christian population
extensively. Much of this was based on research carried out by the Department of
Anthropology of the University of the Philippines, which is reflected in a 50-page report
included in the census on the non-Christian tribes. Otley Beyer, author of the section
18
recognized three racial types which were the Pygmies, the Indonesians and the Malays
and went on to describe the different tribes within these racial groups (Buencamino and
De Los Santos 1921: 908).
While the 1918 census had moved away from the terms ‘civilized’ and ‘wild’, it was still
a preoccupation with the colonial administrators as can be seen in Beyer’s statement,
“Our Philippine Mohammedans possess a distinct civilization of their own, and a
considerable number of the pagans peoples also possess distinct cultures which may be
termed semi-civilized. The really primitive peoples, who live chiefly in the great forests
and in the more remote mountainous regions of the Archipelago, are scattered over a
wide area but do not number more than two hundred thousand individuals” (Buencamino
and De Los Santos 1921: 908).
The American fascination with unknown, ‘such is the variety of the tribes, some of which
are hidden away in the mountains, … where man presented himself to the eyes of the
ethnologist with conditions so extraordinary and worthy of such careful attention’
(Schurman Commission, quoted in Vergara 1995: 52), as reflected in the increase of
categories in the census, was not shared in British Malaya. Though concerned with
protecting the indigenous population and recognizing the aboriginals as
“ethnographically far removed from the Malays but more truly ‘people of the country’
than any other race – in fact the only autochthonous population” (Vlieland 1932: 38),
this was not reflected in the census.
19
In contrast to the Philippine census of 1903 which paid attention to both the Christian and
non-Christian populations, and the 1918 census devoting considerable attention to the
non-Christian indigenous population, the indigenous population in British Malaya
appeared somewhat neglected in the censuses. They were not listed the 1871 census,
listed simply as “Aborigines” in the 1881, 1891 and 1901 census with no further
elaboration into the various ethnicities. Only from the 1911 Federated Malay States
census onwards were the Sakai recognized as a category. Similar to colonial American
attitudes towards the non-Christian population, phrases such as ‘semi-civilized’, ‘wild’
and ‘highly civilized’ were used to describe the indigenous population (Nathan 1922: 16,
Vlieland 1932: 103). Jakun was recognized in the 1921 census, and the 1931 census
recognized additional ethnicities – Semang, Jakun and Orang Mantra, but enumerated
them together as “Nomadic Aboriginals”(Nathan 1922: 2, Vlieland 1932: 102).
Linguistic differences were used to determine differences between the groups. The 1947
census had a longer listing of ethnic categories of Aborigines, which were Negrito, Jakun,
Semai (aka Semak, Senoi), Sisek (Besisi), Semelai and Temiar.
Similarities with groups in the Philippines had been noted in the 1921 census. In
providing a general description of British Malaya, paragraph two states that “The earliest
inhabitants of the Peninsula were probably the Semang, a race of Negritoes, related to
the Aetas of the Philippines” (Nathan 1922: 2). Overall however, the indigenous
population in Malaysia did not consume as much attention of the census administrator as
much as the other ethnicities did.
20
Malays and Other Natives of the Archipelago
While the Filipinos were considered by the Americans as ‘Malay’, across the South
China Seas in British Malaya, the ethnic composition under the category of ‘Malays and
Other Natives of the Archipelago’ was constantly changing. ‘Manilamen’ (no description
given), were included and listed alphabetically in the 1871 and 1881 Straits Settlements
census. They were placed under the ‘Malays and other Natives of the Archipelago’
category in the 1891 and 1901 Strait Settlement censuses and also in the 1901 Federated
Malay States censuses (Hirschman, 1987).
Based on the above it would appear that the British census administrators viewed
Filipinos in the same light as it viewed migrants from the Dutch East Indies, of similar
racial stock to the Malays. In fact a note in the 1891 census described the difficulties in
carrying out comparisons with state censuses of 1884 and 1887 due to the Nationalities
being confused, points out a mistake, with “… Manilamen being entered under
‘Miscellaneous’ instead of under “Malays and other Natives of the Archipelago”
(Merewether 1892: 30), clearly demonstrating that Filipinos were to be seen as being
Malay or at least a native of the Archipelago.
However from 1911 onwards, the term ‘Manilamen’ was replaced with ‘Filipino’, and
was shifted from the category of ‘Malay and other Natives of the Archipelago’ to
‘Others’ in all proceeding censuses. No explanation was provided in the census as to this
change. At the same time, some tribes recognized in the Philippines also began appeared
on the British censuses. Sulu appeared on the 1911 Straits Settlements Census, listed
21
under “Malays and Allied Races”. Batak appeared in the 1931 British Malaya census,
also listed under the category “Malaysian by Race” and Negritos were recognized as
aboriginals in the 1947 census.
Other changes that occurred in the 1911 Straits Settlement census was the rewording of
the subheading ‘Malays and other Natives of the Archipelago’ to ‘Malays and Allied
Races’ and ‘Malay population by race’ in the 1911 Federated Malay State census.
A possible explanation for Filipinos to be shifted to the ‘others’ category was that while
British census administrators could recognize them as natives of the archipelago, they
were unwilling to consider them as an allied race. This however appears a rather weak
argument. A better argument could be linked to the role of religion and how it affected
racial categorization.
The population was classified according to religion for the first time in the 1911 Straits
Settlements census. The categories mentioned were Chinese (Non-Christian and NonMuhammadan), Muhammadans, Hindus, Christians, Jew, Buddhists, Jews, Parsi, Shinto,
Sikh, Pagan, Theosophist and None (Marriott 1911: 1). However while noting that
religion appeared to be a more important marker for identification for the Asian
population rather than race, Vlieland’s (1932) went on to state in the opening line of the
section on religion in the 1931 census that, “Enquiries as to religion are not of any great
local importance or value in a census of British Malaya, since the Malay population
proper is universally, and the whole Malaysian population almost entirely,
Muhammadan, except for the pagan aboriginals” (Vlieland 1932: 87).
22
For the Chinese population, he stated that their religious forms of worship are “of a
nature essentially different from the beliefs to which the term religion is commonly
applied in western parlance”, which Confucianism being regarded as a philosophy rather
than a religion (Vlieland 1932: 87). Furthermore as the European and Eurasians were
mainly Christian, “it would be clearly a waste of labour and money to compile and
tabulate a classification by religion” (Vlieland 1932: 88). He goes on to state that while
those listed under “Other Races” belonged to various religions, “the principal recognized
religions to be found amongst them would be relatively small that it is doubtful whether
special compilation would be justified” (Vlieland 1932: 88).
The 1931 census followed a similar method adopted in 1921, and only tabulated the
number of Chinese who were either Chinese or Muslim, and provided a full classification
of the Indian religions. Based on this, the census attempted to provide a rough estimate
of the whole population of British Malaya, utilizing the following categories:
Muhammadans, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Others (Vlieland 1932: 90).
With the introduction of religion category into the census, Malayness was more tied with
being Muslim. As the Filipinos were mainly Christian, this may have led to a shift in
categories. Migrants from the Dutch East Indies on the other hand, were mainly Muslim,
and thus the census administrator may have seen these groups as being more appropriate
to be placed in the category of Malay and Allied Races. Furthermore, the method of
estimating the population according to religion, by only enumerating selected groups and
assuming all those in the ‘Malay and allied races’ were Muslims (with the exception of
23
the aborigines), would have resulted in the census enumerator been careful to keep this
category as Muslim as possible. Hence the removal of the Filipinos from this category
and placed under ‘Others’.
The high levels of migration over a long period also resulted in debates in who could be
considered indigenous. Even within the category of ‘Malays and Other Natives of the
Archipelago’ which was created in the 1891, there remained questions on who was
actually a true Malay. The 1931 British Malaya census attempted to draw a distinction
between Malays from the peninsula and those from the Dutch East Indies by creating the
subcategory “Malaysians” to include within in “all indigenous peoples of the Malay
Peninsula and Archipelago” while the term “Malay” was to be used exclusively “to
include only those Malaysians (excluding aboriginals) who belong to British Malaya”
(Vlieland 1932: 75).
However, while attempting to make a distinction, it was already recognized that the
group regarded as indigenous was already very mixed. As stated Vlieland (1932: 38),
“… if any considerable number of generations in what is now British Malaya could be
and were taken as the criterion of a ‘Malay’, the picture of the composition of the
population here given would be altered more profoundly than it is altered by the
separation made between “Malay” and “Other Malaysians”. He also stated that the,
“It is commonplace that Malaya is full of ‘foreign’ Malays … throughout the whole of
Malaya except Kelantan and Trengganu, the Malays are not indigenous inhabitants but
colonists” (Vlieland 1949: 61, 63).
24
Conclusion
The main purpose of censuses is for governments to know its populations, and colonizers
to known the colonized population. The process of administering a census and
interpreting its results is always a political act (Tishkov 2005:12), especially so when
dealing with the construction of identities. The British and the Americans approached the
exercise of classifying their populations from different ideological points.
British economic colonial policy resulted in high levels of migration, creating a mosaic of
ethnicities in British Malaya. Early attempts to classify the population was based on
nationality which basically referred to place of birth, as the majority of the population
arrived from other British colonies. A review the British Malaya colonial census
revealed that the colonial authorities were interested in the movement of people, knowing
where they were coming from and how many were arriving and departing. They were
also interested in knowing how this movement affected the indigenous population.
The Americans on the other hand, did not appear as concerned with economic issues as
much as with political issues. A review of the censuses in the Philippines reflected a
need to know which sections of the population were capable of self-governance. The
attention given towards the classification of non-Christian tribes showed a desire to
contribute towards anthropological studies of the time.
Furnivall, in acknowledging the differences in colonial rule, states that ‘the relations
between Englishmen and Hindu cannot be identical with the relations between French
25
and Annamese, or between Dutch and Javanese … each colonial power has stamped its
own imprint on its system of administration’ (Furnivall 1956): preface). Both the British
and the American were driven by different reasons to colonize, and this in turn is
reflected in the way they organized their colonies.
References
Anderson, B. (2002). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism London, New York, Verso.
Baines, J. A. (1911). "The Census of the Empire, 1911." Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society 77(4): 381-414.
Buencamino, F. and E. De Los Santos (1921). Census of the Philippine Islands, Taken
Under the Direction of the Philippine Legislature in the Year 1918, Volume II:
Population and Mortality. Manila, Bureau of Printing.
Christopher, A. J. (2005). "Race and the Census in the Commonwealth." Population,
Space and Place 11: 103-118.
Del Tufo, M. V. (1949). A Report of the 1947 Census of the Population. London, Crown
Agents for the Colonies.
Finin, G. (1991). Regional Consciousness and Administrative Grids: Understanding the
Role of Planning in the Philippine's Gran Cordillera Central, Cornell University.
Furnivall, J. S. (1956). Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and
Netherlands India New York, New York University Press.
Go, J. (2004). ""Racism" and Colonialism: Meanings of Difference and Ruling Practices
in America's Pacific Empire." Qualitative Sociology 27(1): 35-58.
Hayden, R. (1927). "Malaya and the Philippines: Colonial Contrasts." Foreign Affairs
5(2): 327-331.
Hirschman, C. (1987). "The Meaning and Measurement of Ethnicity in Malaysia: An
Analysis of Census Classifications." Journal of Asian Studies 46(3): 555-582.
Hirschman, C., R. Alba, et al. (2000). "The Meaning and Measurement of Race in the
U.S. Census: Glimpses into the Future." Demography 37(3): 381-393.
Howe, K.R. (2000). Nature, Culture and History Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press
26
Malaya, B. Report on the 1931 Census and on Certain Problems of Vital Statistics
Marriott, H. (1911). Report on the Census of the Colony of the Straits Settlements, Taken
on the 10th March 1911. Singapore, Government Printing Office.
Merewether, E. M. (1892). Report on the Census of the Straits Settlements, Taken on the
5th April 1891. Singapore, Government Printing Office.
Millegan, L. S. (1942). "Census of the Philippines: 1939." The Far Eastern Quarterly
2(1): 77-79.
Nathan, J. E. (1922). The Census of British Malaya (The Straits Settlements, Federated
Malay States and Protected States of Johore, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu
and Brunei) 1921. London, Waterlow & Sons Limited.
Salman, M. (2001). The Embarrassment of Slavery: Controversies over Bondage and
Nationalism in the American Colonial Philippines Berkeley, University of
California Press.
Sanger, J. P., H. Gannett, et al. (1905). Census of the Philippine Islands, Taken Under the
Direction of the Philippine Commission in the Year 1903, Volume II: Population.
Washington, United States Bureau of the Census.
Sullivan, R. (1991). Exemplar of Americanism: The Philippine Career of Dean C.
Worcester. Ann Arbor, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, The
University of Michigan.
Tishkov, V. (2005). "The Population Census and the Construction of Identity."
Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia 44(2): 10-40.
Vargas, J., V. Mills, et al. (1940). Census of the Philippines: 1939. Manila, Bureau of
Printing.
Vergara, B. (1995). Displaying Filipinos: Photography and Colonialism in Early 20th
Century Philippines Quezon City, University of the Philippines Press.
Vlieland, C. A. (1932). Report on the 1931 Census and on Certain Problems of Vital
Statistics London, The Crown Agents for the Colonies.
Vlieland, C. A. (1949). "The 1947 Census of Malaya." Pacific Affairs 22(1): 59-63.
27