This question is about the reasons for colonialsm, 1870 – 1900.
How similar were the reasons responsible the European colonization of Southeast Asia in the
period 1870 – 1900? Explain your answer.
(12)
L5: Explains difference (s) AND similarity (s), with examples from at least 2 countries
L6: L5, plus explains how far they were similar
Questions give Info
Rephrase Qstion
8-10
This question is about European colonization of SEA between 1870 to 1900
There were reasons for the colonization
How similar were the reasons?
How different were the reasons?
Why were they similar?
This question concerns the reasons responsible for the European colonization of SEA.
One of the main similarities lies in the threat posed by Germany in the 1870s which led to a mad
scramble for colonies in Southeast Asia in British Malaya and French Indochina.
In the 1870s, Germany was a newly unified country which began to aggressively seek overseas
colonies. This made countries like Britain and France seek to expand their influence and colonies into
the interior. For example, in British Malaya, Great Britain only occupied the Straits Settlements
(Singapore, Malacca and Penang) and adopted a non-intervention policy in Malaya before 1870.
However when rumors of German negotiations for Langkawi spread, British policy makers in Britain
panicked. When Sultan Abdullah of Perak invited Britain to settle succession disputes and secret
society clashes in his Kingdom, Sir Andrew Clarke quickly sent British officials to conclude the
Pangkor Treaty in 1874.
Similarly, in French Indo-China, the French were defeated by the Germans in the 1870s. French Prime
Minister Jules Ferry felt that if France did not expand into her colonies quickly, France would become
a third rate power. Therefore, France adopted an colonization policy . Before the 1870s, French
colonization policy was limited to Cochin China with French ministers trying to avoid an expensive
colonial war.. However, after the 1870s, Jules Ferry believed it was French duty to ‘civilize barbarians’
and supported the annexation of Tongkin and Annam in the 1880s and 1890s.
One of the main difference was however the role played by religion and trade in the colonization of
Southeast Asia. In the case of Malaya, trade played a large part. In the case of Vietnam, religion played
a larger role.
Religion played a key role in Vietnam because Emperor Tu Duc had an anti-Catholic policy in the
1860s and 1870s. Tu Duc captured and executed Spanish Bishop Diaz and French priests in the 1850s,
which led to French governors and adventurers attacking Hanoi. Religion however did not play a large
role in Malaya because the British allowed the Malay Sultans to remain in power and left them or even
strengthened their position as the leader of Islam in the various states.
Trade played a far larger role in Malaya because tin was discovered in the Larut tin mines. Businesses
in Britain and Singapore pressured and lobbied for the British government to create peaceful conditions
in Perak, which would allow for foreign investment. Trade therefore played a far larger role in
coloniization than religion in Southeast Asia.
1
‘In the period 1870 – 1900, Southeast Asia failed in responding to the colonial threat which
resulted in European domination of the region’. How far do you agree? (13)
L5: Explains the given reason AND other reason (s), with examples from at least two
countries
L6: Reaches a balanced conclusion based on the relative significance of the reasons
Questions give Info
Rephrase Question
9-11
12-13
This question is about colonial threat
SEA failed in responding to the threat. It led to European domination
Which part of this is true?
Which part of this is false?
How far is this true?
I think that to a very large extent, SEA failed in responding to the colonial threat because their response
of using active military resistance failed. As a result, it ended in European domination of the region.
However, their passive response was very successful in retaining SEA culture and tradition. It was a
good example of how SEA people were flexible and were able to meet up to the colonial threat.
Military resistance or the use of force to resist colonialism was used as a reaction to colonialism. For
example, Emperor Minh Maung , Thieu Tri and Tu Duc adopted anti-Catholic policies. It led to French
reaction and wars which France won. Eventually Cochin-China was annexed directly and came under
French control. Even after Tongkin and Annam became French protectorates, Ton That Thuyet, an
influential court official and the young Emperor Ham Nghi fought on and started the ‘Can Vuong
Movement’ Or Aid the King’ movement. They carried out rebellions in the provinces to massacre
Catholics and oust the French. The movement ended with the captured of Emperor Ham Nghi in
November 1888. He was sent to live out his life in exile in Algeria. This showed that military
resistance was useless.
In Malaya, military resistance also failed. When British Resident JW Birch tried to ban debt slavery
and introduces taxation, he was murdered and the Perak Revolt broke out. Again, it was useless
because in less than a year, the rebellion was put down by British troops who were sent from Penang,
Singapore, India and HK.
Passive resistance was however very successful in preserving local tradition and preventing the
colonial domination of Asian culture. For example, in Vietnam, Catholicism only became very popular
when local villages practices and Buddhist elements were incorporated into Catholic practices. This
was called Vietnamization. In the villages of Vietnam, the tradition of having ancestor worship and
worshipping the cult of guardian spirits were kept. This shows that SEA succeeded in responding to the
colonial threat when it came to cultural and heritage issues.
In Malaya, passive resistance worked even better in resisting European domination. Malay culture was
allowed to continue. There were very few converts among the Malays, Traditions and festivals like
Hari Raya (Malays), Thaipusam (Indians) and the Hungry Ghost Festival (Chinese) carried on. The
British adopted a non-interventionist approach which worked well.
Therefore I think that SEA failed in responding to the colonial threat when it came to political and
military matters. It resulted in the occupation of many SEA states under European rule. However, when
it came to the preservation of traditions and culture, as well as the use of passive resistance, it worked
very well.
2