1
Asia Fellows’ Annual Conference Paper 2007
Farewell to Homeland：
Marriage, Family and Ethnicity Identity of the Chinese in Malaysia
Liu Zhaohui
Lecturer, Department of Anthropology and Ethnology,
Xiamen University, China
Abstract
This paper explores historically and comparatively Chinese ethnicity identity in Malaysia from the marriage and
family perspectives. It argues that there ever existed three configurations in Chinese marriage and family history,
namely bilateral family, interracial family and Chinese endogamy. The configurations of marriage and family were
not only the reflections of ethnicity identity, but exerted the influences on the ethnicity change as well. As far as
Chinese were concerned, the choice of marriage has always been a kind of strategy of retaining ethnicity as well as
symbol of ethnicity identity and localization. The interracial marriages have been increasing since Malaya
Independence in 1957, but the investigations also showed that more Chinese preferred to intermarry among the
Chinese, they thought that Chinese endogamy can keep the same ethnicity and ensure effectively own rights such as
politics, economic, language and education, etc. on the contrary, the interracial marriages made their families
excluded gradually from Chinese community. Despite interracial marriage nowadays will not lead to the possibility
of the appearance of “the third community” such as Baba society again, existing ethnic boundary in marriage may
perhaps be negative factor during the construction of the multiple-ethnic group’s society in Malaysia in the
globalization.
1. Introduction
From the late 19th century to the early half of the 20th century, Asian countries, including China
and Southeast Asian countries，commenced seeking to break away from the ruling of colonialism
2
and setting foot in the nationally independent path of self-mastery and self-enhancement. The
road they chose was to found modern nation /state. By the middle 20th century, the revolution of
national and democratic independence in Asian countries reached the climax. Since then, the
great changes have taken place in political and economic patterns and social structure in these
countries. They walked up from colonies and half colonies reign to the self-governing and
independent path, trying to construct the multiple ethnic societies into modern nations/states.
The process of building countries produced a profound effect on the ethnicity and political
identity. The Chinese ethnic, which is one of the most important ethnic groups in Southeast Asia,
achieved the process of localization: they identified with the new independent states and became
citizenship and eventually blended into the adopted society. Over the past one hundred year, the
scholars have always been paying special attention to the transformations of identity. These
studies almost agreed that the Chinese identity presented the characteristic of pluralism and
overlapping1. Synoptically speaking, constructing identity is an internal reflection based on some
factors such as community, economy and culture. Pluralism is its main characteristic. This
multiple identity formed the three-level emotional identity when the individuals or groups were
seeking their belongings. First, “ethnic identity”—formed from the reflection of their social roles;
Second, “national identity”-- formed by internally chasing after their nation/state; Third,
“cultural identity” -- formed by adhesion to cultures of surpassing states boundaries. These three
identities are not a single choice. On the contrary, they often overlapped in the ideas and
behaviors of the Chinese overseas. In other words, we will find from an individuals or ethnic
groups that most Chinese overseas incline to overlap their identities.
We may take national identity as an example. National identity ideology, which rose up in the
end of Qing Dynasty in Singapore and Malaya, was stimulated by the domestic enthusiastic
thoughts of nationalism in China. By the middle of 20th century, the overseas Chinese national
identity fluctuated greatly under the influence of the “Citizenship Movement” in Malaya, and the
reconstructing socialist movement during the initial stages of the People’s Republic of China
(RPC), to some extent, also accelerated the transition of their national identity2. Ever since the
late 20th century, with the trend of globalization, the Chinese overseas tried to declare their
cultural identity in ways of advocating Chinese traditional culture and pursuing cosmopolitanism
contemporarily3.
Wang Gungwu even constructed an “ideal model” by researching Chinese status identity in
Southeast Asia, which showed that Chinese in different surroundings could form their multiple
identity based on the permutation and combination of such factors as ethnic groups, cultures,
3
classes and nation, etc4. In particular, he indicated that the Chinese in Malaysia had stronger
conception of “village identity” than those in Southeast Asia. The researches including Lin
Shuihao’s all showed that the Chinese identity in Malaysia experienced the following social and
historical process: from village identity to national identity and then from local identity
(Malaysia) to cultural identity, till multiple identity5. So we can say, during quite long historical
period Chinese identity in Malaysia inclined to be represented as village identity and national
identity and the latter three forms have been gradually constructed and strengthened since the
middle of 20th century.
Therefore this special feature of the identity of Chinese in Malaysian promotes us to further think
about the reason for the burgeoning and growth of village identity and national identity. And then,
how did the developing process from “home to nation (China) till local state (Malaysia)”
influence historically and realistically on the constructing of contemporary Chinese overseas
identity? As 21st century has fallen, more and more people will migrate all over the world, and
their status identity will be more complicated. Hence, it attracts academia’s attention that how
Southeast Asian Chinese seek their own political and cultural orientation with the trend of
globalization, and how they exert an influence on regions in Asia.
In my paper, I will explore ethnicity identity from marriage and family perspectives and intend to
point out what was logic and intrinsic relationships between marriage & family and ethnicity
identity. For this purpose, I will examined historically and comparatively the configurations of
marriage and family of immigrants. According to transformation, the configurations of marriage
and family may be divided presumedly into three stages, namely as sojourners in the early and
late 19th century, as settlers in the early half 20th century and as citizenships since Malaya
Independence in 1957. This paper will be divided into 7 sections: introduction; subject;
conceptual and methodological framework; Chinese marriage and family in 19th Century; Baba
society as the third community; Ethnic boundary in marriage; conclusion.
2. The Chinese in Penang of Malaysia as Subject
Why to choose the Chinese in Penang of Malaysia as subject? The answer is involved in two
implications: one related to type of object; the other is what is the objective after the Chinese
study? As what Geertz Clifford, a distinguished American anthropologist, said: “Anthropologists
don’t study villages (tribes, towns, neighborhoods, etc.), on the contrary, they are just engaged in
studying in the villages” 6. In other words, subject is an issue whereas objective is another,
subject is unequal to objective. The final objective concerning Chinese study is to try to answer:
4
what is after the facts? In this paper, I will discuss mainly Chinese marriage, family in Penang of
Malaysia. The aim is to examine how the Chinese overseas achieved historically and socially the
ethnicity identity and transformation. In other words, I will explore how the Chinese overseas
said goodbye to their homelands.
Penang state consists of Penang Island and Province Wellesley and is located at the northwest
part of the straits of Malacca. As one of 13 states of Malaysia, its acreage has 1031 sq.km. 1.314
million Populations (data in 2003) are basically divided into three main ethnic groups: Chinese,
Malayan and Indian, they prorated 45, 41 and 10 respectively. Penang is only one state with the
highest density of Chinese community in Malaysia7. In fact, since the landing of Penang Island
in 1786 by Francis Light, the Chinese have always been dominated in population. Generally
speaking, the Chinese populations were distinguished by dialect groups. The Chinese in Penang
comprised of Hokkiens, Cantonese, Hakkas, Teochews, and Hainanese. Of all populations,
Hokkiens8 were most sub- ethnic group among Chinese since 1786.
It was believed that Hokkiens should be one of the earliest immigrants in Penang Island.
According to monuments in United Hokkien Cemeteries in Penang, Cheah, Tan, Khoo, Lim, and
Yeoh clansmen have been here before 18th century9. All immigrants transplanted respectively
clan organization and gradually formed kindred settlements. This was so-called “Five Big Clans”.
In China, Khoo, Cheah, Yeoh, and Lim early clansmen came from the Sam Toh Distract in Hai
Teng County of the Chiang Chew Prefecture in Hokkien Province and belonged to the same
single surname villages respectively, only Tan clansmen originated from different adjacent
villages, however, Lim clansmen ancestors resided in TongAn County of Quanzhou Prefecture.
Among the Five Big Clansmen, the Cheah, the Khoo and the Yoeh were more closely related;
their homeland villages were in the north and the west of Sam Quaye Nia Hill in the Sam Toh
Distract. Intermarriage among the clansmen of these three clans had been practiced for
generations in China and Penang. Five Big Clansmen immigrated together to the adopted lands;
some of them lived in the neighborhood and helped each other because of the same dialect,
occupation and interest, just as they had done in their home villages.
3. Conceptual and Methodological Framework
3.1 Marriage and Family as Analytical Units
The Political participation in the receiving society was usually regarded as a leading indication
which meant the change of nation identity, that is to say, for individuals, their sense of
belongings and the intrapersonal commitment to homeland have shifted while Chinese marriage
5
overseas was generally just research subject as a kind of culture phenomenon. For example,
Maurice Freedman’ study concerning Chinese family and marriage in Singapore. He focused on
marriage’s structure, matchmaking, divorce, households and kinship systems and noticed the
changes of marriage and family in configurations and function 10 . It was well-known that
marriage has been frequently used as a political strategy, which was introduced to appease
conflicts or wars between countries or different ethnic groups in the ancient history of China.
This was so called “intermarriage strategy”. In the civil society, compared with the
“intermarriage strategy”, intermarriage often played the reverse reason-result role in reaching
social control. For example, Narrow marriage circles led to close quarters intermarriage in the
rural society, which made adjacent villages became “relatives’ villages” each other. And then,
intermarriage not only can help one another, but also can avoid effectively the risk of conflicts
among different villages and different clans.
As far as immigrants overseas were concerned, marriage, especially endogamy, usually became
the last “line of defense” which sustained racial identity. In Chinese context, endogamy was
considered to retain unilateral descent groups, or to say accurately, patrilineage. When faced to
other ethnic groups, this kind of culturally rule turned immediately into politically strategy, and it
could shape severely ethnic identity. On the surface, it is just natural norm; in fact, it must mix
inevitably with other power factors such as culture, class, and nation and make marriage
phenomenon complex, particularly when interracial marriage appeared. In Southeast Asian in
19th century, owing to abnormal unbalance in gender, most of Chinese male immigrants had to
marry non-Chinese women. The appearance of fixed family made overseas Chinese to start to
deviate gradually from their homeland and opened the prelude of localization.
The appearance of family abroad challenged traditional family configuration and function.
Family abroad had two categories: one was family only in abroad; the other was family in
homeland in China as well as abroad. The latter was so-called “bilateral family”. Whichever
there existed, it meant that second homeland came into being, which made overseas Chinese
residing steadily in abroad. Theoretically, family abroad should have two possibilities: endogamy
and exogamy. In Malaya peninsular, exogamy usually occurred between Chinese and Malayan.
Interracial marriage led to Baba society. In reality, the Baba and the nyonya were usually
regarded as neither Chinese nor Malay. It was classified as “the third community”. Baba
phenomenon made Chinese ethnicity so “impure” that the Baba and the nyonya have been
always “go-betweens” until final disappearance after Malaysia Independence.
3.2 Methodological Framework
6
Different from other macroscopically study, I use from-bottom-to-top microcosmic case study.
Adopting a from-history-to-realistic perspective, I first analyses marriage circles and family
configurations of early immigrants by checking the records in clan genealogy, key findings can
support my hypothesis: intermarriage have resulted in crucial occurrences in Chinese community
overseas, especially for Chinese society structure and individuals family configuration, e.g.,
Baba society and bilateral family have appeared in the early 19th century, which made overseas
Chinese to turn sojourner into settler step by step, though their feelings still oriented towards
homeland; and then, I extended these family pedigree to contemporary descendents, by oral
history method, I interviewed key informants and listen to their family histories and life saga.
This is so called historical ethnography.
It is impossible for any habitats to just exist geographically Chinese community in contemporary
Southeast Asian because of Urbanization. However, the variety of Chinese associations can call
in their respective memberships who live dispersedly in different corners in cities. They held
celebrations termly and created repetitious chances to get together, which form a temporary
community, or to say, an “imagined community”. At that time, I transplanted and adjusted
anthropologically traditional micro-community methodology. In the process of participation and
observation in the “temporary community”, I not only acquired deep interview materials, but
achieved surveys as well.
The means of investigation served research objective. In order to obtain interviewees reflections
on marriage and political participation, I at first interviewed informants by unlimited and
semi-structural questions. After collecting enough information, I made out the standard/structural
questionnaires and finished them face to face in friendly and unrestrained atmosphere on the spot.
The questionnaires provided me with plenty of general information as well as representative
cases, as I chose intentionally key informants to make depth interview.
Comparative study was another methodological trait. I compared officially history literatures
with private archives and oral materials including China, Malaysia and Singapore, So-called
private archives here indicated those nongovernmental collections such as genealogy, notebooks,
personal collections, title deed, amanuensis, even tombstones in cemetery. As far as common
overseas Chinese were concerned, tombstones in cemetery perhaps were one and only place. In
the past half century, some scholars have conducted lots of fieldworks on epigraphic materials in
Malaysia and Singapore, for example, Wolfgang Franke and Chen Tieh Fan and Teoh Shiaw
Kuan11, these researches showed us what about were early life and social activities of early
Chinese immigrant, but there existed some mistakes and inaccurate deducing conclusions
7
because of absence from interrelated materials from China. Combining genealogy with
epigraphic materials as well as personal collections and oral history; I not only found and
corrected some of mistakes, but also more precisely recovered historical facts.
3.3 The Sources of Data
⑴ Genealogy of the Sin Kang Khoo and Chan Clans. It revised in 1867, made up of 27 volumes
and recorded 650-hundred dynamic history of Khoo clan. I worked over its 9 prologues, pedigree
structure, personal biography, clan lands, rules and regulations and revising process, especially
focused on studying migration clansmen. I have made detailed statistics on these immigrants
including populations, places, patterns, time, marriage, family and social activities, etc.
⑵ Epigraphic Materials and Oral History. Combining them with genealogy, I have succeed in
checking out 41 of 102 founders of Leong San Tong Khoo Kongsi all items such as birthday and
dead day, marriage and family, cemetery and biography from Genealogy, then compared with
tombstones records in Penang. I also discovered and interviewed 7 living offspring of 41 and
listened to their own family history. In this way, I could reconstruct relationship between past and
today; moreover, it could help us make for true history.
⑶ Questionnaires and observations. I talked with 54 people face to face during the participation
in activities and finished 54 questionnaires. Moreover, I almost participated in lots of Chinese
festivals and activities such as the ancestral worshipping on Tomb-Sweeping Day; Hunger Ghost
Festival; traditional culture performances in banquets; celebrations in sub-organization, etc.
besides, some Chinese associations’ activities such as the Chiang Chew Association, the Hokkien
Association, the Sam Toh Bean Lok Keok, etc.
⑷ Historical Materials and Existing Research Results.
4. The Chinese Marriage and Family in 19th Century
4.1 Marriage and Family as Migrant: Khoo clan case in Penang of Malaysia
Xin’an village, Khoo Clansman homeland, is located at northwest of Xieman, Fujian Province in
China, about 10 kilometers away from Xiamen city center. Khoo Eng Zai (also called Chiang
Eng Kong), was titled respectfully to be progenitor by Sin Kang Khoo and Chan Clansmen
around the world. The population of Khoo Clan increased soon. the genealogy indicated that the
number of Men has been more than 1000 during Emperor Kangxi (1654—1722) of Qing dynasty,
according to Chinese patriarchal clan system, when a big family expanded the fifth later, it must
8
be divided into many sub-families, we called them “Pang”s. all Pangs consisted of a clan. It is
believed that Khoo clan have already shaped during the Emperor Qianlong (1736—1795), and
already established structurally clan organization, I call it “5 Pangs 9 branches 4 corners”. Up to
the end of Emperor Qianlong, Khoo family has expanded into a dominant clan, and almost
occupied the whole village territory. Statistics from genealogy indicated that the quantity of
Khoo clansman have cumulated to reach 14517 persons until 1867, 2226 of who immigrated
Nanyang12 including Taiwan, Hongkong and Macao, etc.
In Southeast Asian, Khoo clansmen first arrived at Malacca and Rangoon of Burma, then
distributed into Penang and Singapore and Sumatra. According to genealogy, the earliest Khoo
migrants in Malay Peninsula were in Malacca. Their tombstones have already been discovered in
Malacca. During 1736 to 1851, 2073 immigrants arrived at different places such as Penang,
Luzon, Malacca, Batavia, etc. 817 of them landed in Penang, 345 among 817 immigrants resided
in Penang during 1786—1820, that is to say, they were actually a part of early Chinese
immigrants in Penang.
By the end of 1860s, 2226 Khoo clansmen have immigrated to Nan yang (including Taiwan,
Hongkong, macao), but 51% of all immigrants have died in the way, 36.8% survivals went to
Penang. Most of them have been married and formed three kinds of family configuration: family
in China only; family in Nanyang only; bilateral family between China and Nanyang. They
prorated 71: 18: 11.it meant: ① most of them have married before migration; ② nearly 90%
immigrants had only one family, whether in China or Nanyang; ③ absolute majority of husbands
had only one wife; ④ the multitude of bilateral families appeared after 1830—40s; ⑤ there
were 313 households (including bilateral families) in Nanyang, 178 cases of 313 households had
only a Chinese wife, 117 cases had only a local wife (non Chinese), 19 cases had both a Chinese
and local wife (one to four wives), they prorated 56.9:37.4:5.7.
From this statistics, we can find that 43.1% households had non Chinese wife. The interracial
marriage accelerated Khoo clansmen localization. Another case was 102 founders of Leong San
Tong Khoo Kongsi. The stone inscription of the Ee Kok Tong, dated the 29th year of the Guang
Xu reign(1903), said that the Ee Kok Tong, the predecessor of Leong San Tong KHoo Kongsi,
was founded in 1835, it also listed down the names and contribution of the 102 clansmen.
Although some scholars have paid attention to 102 founders, few of them studied them in
detailed. I checked them one by one in genealogy while compared with monuments; finally I
obtained 41 people materials and some valuable findings: ① these founders belonged to
descendents from sixteenth to nineteenth generation; ② 39 have own family (before 1867), of
9
these families, 18 China families, 4 Penang families and 17 bilateral families; ③ of 21 families
overseas, 6 families had non-Chinese wife and only one native-born Chinese wife; ④ only 6
went back to China and died in homeland. All meant that as pioneers of early immigrants, they
have started to change their social status from sojourners to settlers.
4.2 The Flower of Interracial marriage: Baba Society as the Third Community?
There is a saying among Hokkiens in Penang: Third generation became Baba. Babas, originally
defined just from consanguinity, preferred to intermarried descendents who overseas Chinese
intermarried Non-Chinese in the Straits Settlements in 19th century. Baba society appeared first
in Malacca, and then Singapore and Penang. Most of Babas in Singapore were immigrants from
Malacca whereas Babas in Penang were native-born 13 . Penang Baba society appeared in
1840-50s or a little earlier. Even though some studies have distinguished Penang’s Baba from
Malacca and Singapore in blood and culture perspectives, as far as Khoo case was concerned,
there should existed another vital factor, which was birthplace, whether their wives were Chinese
or non Chinese. That is to say, those who were born in Penang were called Baba. When I
conducted my field in China, Xin’an Khoo clansmen held this viewpoint as well.
It was obvious that what Babas in Penang was different from other places was what they were
not all descendents from Chinese and non-Chinese. Quite a number of Babas were actually
native-born Chinese in Penang, in other words, they were called Babas just because of their
Malayanized lifestyle and custom. Baba case in Penang challenged traditional definition from
simple blood perspective. It also could be illustrated from birthplace and cultural characteristics
point of views. compared with “pure” Chinese; Penang Baba shared common cultural
characteristics as follows: they spoke Malayan and wore Malayan clothing and English-educated
and were accustomed to Malayan food, etc. in politics, they were identified with the colonialism
government and its suzerain. Another important difference between Penang Babas and Malacca
& Singapore Babas was that the former could speak Hokkien dialect besides English and
Malayan and Mandarin, yet the latter just could speak English and Malayan. Nevertheless,
Penang Hokkien dialect has mixed some Malayan and English glossaries14. In China, Penang
Babas were called “tu-sheng-zi” (native-born children).
Babas (including Nyonya) were treated as special ethnic group in the Straits Settlements in the
19th century. Even so did by the early 20th century. Though Baba has no distinct difference from
Chinese or aboriginal inhabitants in physical characteristics, they was neither accepted by
Chinese (whether born-native Chinese or New migrants) nor by aborigines because of their
unique cultures. In the Straits Settlements, they have ever shaped own ethnic consciousness as a
10
independent sub-ethnic group, for example, establishment of Straits Chinese British Association
(SCBA), Baba literatures and Baba identity, etc, however, with the increasing Chinese
immigrants and withdrawal of British colonialism, in particular, since Independence in 1957,
Baba society experienced process of re-Chinese and returned to Chinese community. Up to now,
it has completely disappeared as a special sub-ethnic group, but as a case of interracial marriage,
it deed did forge a third community independence of Chinese and natives community.
5. Ethnic Boundary in Marriage
5.1 Marriage Preference within sub-ethnic groups
My investigations on genealogy showed that, of 2226 immigrants overseas, there existed 725
marriage cases, 58 surnames intermarried Khoo clansmen before 1860s, the most anterior
surnames was Yeoh(118), Tan(112), Lim(101), Ke(59), Cheah(58)15. In China, they belonged to
the same region and intermarried to be “relative villages”, when they immigrated to Nanyang,
they also abide by this custom. However, up to now, some changes have taken place, for instance,
their choices didn’t just limit within five surnames any more but extended marriage circles to
Hokkiens and Cantoneses. According to my questionnaires statistics explored that 43 spouses of
54 interviewees were Hokkiens, 5 Cantoneses, 3 Hakkas, 1Teochew, and 1 Putianese and
1Fouzhou people. Why so? Synoptically speaking, there were 7 replies as follows:
⑴ Our parents knew very well long before;
⑵ We have ever been schoolmates each other;
⑶ We had same dialect and life habits;
⑷ We are Hokkiens and Hokkiens married each other from the beginning of our ancestors;
⑸ Our family circumstances were almost equal;
⑹ After a friend introduced ourselves, We all felt well each other and then married;
⑺ Chinese should marry naturally Chinese, so did from of old.
It was obvious that traditional friendly and social relationships, the same language and cultural
backgrounds, economic status, personality, and so on would exert impact on intermarriage within
same sub-ethnic group. This preference is not taken into consideration of worldly interests so
much as a kind of tradition and sub-cultures law of inertia. Khoo ChyePoh, 39 year olds this year,
his wife is the Teochew. He said:
My wife and I knew each other by way of matchmaker. At that time, I just graduated from
University Sains Malaysia (USM) and have applied for a job; my wife has worked at a
11
hardware store two years after graduation from Upper Secondary. We two are Chinese and
have similar family situation. When I was in the USM, my classmates had many Malay girls,
owing to different custom and religious belief, we may play and communicated well, however,
it was still difficult to become lovers and married. I also knew two of my Chinese classmates
married Malay girls, after their marriage, we Chinese classmates seldom interacted nowadays.
It is incontestable that interracial intermarriage becomes more and more increasing after
independence in 1957, but ethnic boundary instead became more and more apparent, even be
emphasized purposely. Why? What reflections on marriage and family?
5.2 The Marital Possibilities and Obstacles in Interethnic groups
If Baba society might be regarded as a beautiful flower of interracial marriage, its disappearance
was unavoidable. Because it just originated from unbalanced gender among interethnic groups.
After Independence in 1957, the Chinese in Malaysia turned into Malay citizenships and
separated completely from China. As minority ethnic group, the Chinese in Malaysia were
intermarried to other ethnic groups besides Chinese. Although there existed many obstacles in
interracial marriage, the number of interracial marriage still was going up, generally speaking,
interracial marriage often occurred in the upper classes such as professionals with well-education
and job, business or distinguished family. As for common individuals, they preferred to fellows
within the same ethnic group unless they have ever been classmates in the universities and
colleagues in common workplaces.
The outbreak of “5.13 Riot” in 1969 and next a series of policies of political, economic, culture
and religion made a great gulf fixed among different ethnic groups, especially between common
Chinese and common Malays. My questionnaires indicated that 81.7% Chinese “seldom
intercommunicated” with other ethnic groups or “were in peaceful relationship” even though
most of them lived in the same community. 69% of informants had no family visit with other
racial groups each other socially, 12% of informants just had “a little”, less than 7% of
informants said “very often”, other were “don’t know”. Moreover, they preferred to work with
members of the same ethnic group because of stronger discriminated feelings. The peaceful
relationships with other ethnic groups hold back the occurrence of interracial marriage.
The conversations with interviewees revealed that main obstacles in interracial marriage lay in
① worry about the shift of religious belief; ② isolation from own intrinsic ethnic groups; ③
descendants will not be admitted to worship ancestors and buried in the Chinese cemetery after
death; ④ don’t receive round Chinese-education; ⑤ differences in lifestyle and custom; ⑥
12
secund institutional national laws and social systems and ⑦ historical hostility, etc. but then, the
surveys also indicated that young generations had close intercommunion. Nearly 79% of
informants said that their children often played with other ethnic groups’ children. Despite this
childish friendship didn’t mean marriage necessity of interracial groups, after all, this kind of
friendly seed will be beneficial to the construction of the multiple-ethnic group’s society in
Malaysia.
6. Conclusion
This paper explored historically and comparatively Chinese ethnicity identity in Malaysia from
the marriage and family perspectives. It argued that there ever existed three configurations in
Chinese marriage and family history, namely bilateral family, interracial family and Chinese
endogamy. The configurations of marriage and family were not only the reflections of ethnicity
identity, but exerted the influences on the ethnicity change as well. After Malaya Independence
in 1957, owing to losing contact with China, Bilateral family commenced disappearing whereas
interracial family had been increasing quantitatively, but ethnic boundary in marriage became
more apparent and more rigorous. In other words, increasing interracial marriage didn’t mean
amalgamation of multiple ethnic groups one another, on the contrary, it intensified ethnic
boundary and made interracial family marginalized, or excluded chillily by any side of parents’
family.
As far as Chinese were concerned, the choice of marriage has always been a kind of strategy of
retaining ethnicity as well as symbol of ethnicity identity and localization. The interracial
marriages have been increasing since Malaya Independence in 1957, but the investigations also
showed that more Chinese preferred to intermarry among the Chinese, they thought that Chinese
endogamy can keep the same ethnicity and ensure own rights such as politics, economic,
language and education, etc. on the contrary, the interracial marriages made their families
excluded gradually from Chinese community. Despite interracial marriage nowadays will not
lead to the possibility of the appearance of “the third community” again such as Baba society,
existing ethnic boundary in marriage may perhaps be negative factor during the construction of
the multiple-ethnic group’s society in Malaysia in the globalization.
1
Hong Liu, The Transformation of Chinese Society in Postwar Singapore: localizing Process,
Regional Networking, and Global Perspective, Xiamen: Xiamen University Press, 2003.
2
Ching-Hwang Yen, the Overseas Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia and Xinhai Revolution,
translated by Li Enghan. Taiwan: Joint and Management Publishing Company, 1982;
Ying-Hui Li, the Policy on the Overseas Chinese and Nationalism (1912-1949). Taibei:
13
National History Lab Publishing,1997;
Shui-Hao Lim, A New History of the Chinese in Malaysian (Volume I, II, III). Malaysia:
Chinese Convention Hall, 1998.
3
Ping Xie, Chinese Cosmopolitanism in Two Senses and Postcolonial National Memory. The
fourth journal of Horizons, Shi Jiazhuang: Hebei Educational Press. Pp37-53. 2001.
4
Gung-Wu Wang, Wang gungwu Selections: Studies on Status Identification of Southeast
Asian Chinese. Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Press, 2002.
5
Shui-Hao Lim, A New History of the Chinese in Malaysian (Volume I, II, III). Malaysia:
Chinese Convention Hall, 1998.
6
Geertz Clifford, the Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books, 1973,
P22.
7
See-Jian Cheah, The formation of Chinese-led Administration in Penang: from Francis Light to
Koh Tsu Koon(1786-2000), Centennial Magazine of Penang Chinese Chamber of Commerce.
Penang: Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Pp212-13, 2003.
8
In Singapore and Malaysia, even in Chinese community of the whole Southeast Asian,
so-called Hokkiens usually equaled to Chiang Chew people and quaunzhou people with Minan
Dialect.
9
United Hokkien Cemeteries 200, Penang: Board of United Hokkien Cemeteries, 1994.
10
Maurice Freedman, Chinese family and marriage in Singapore (Chinese edition), TaiPei:
ZhengZhongShuJv, 1985.
11
Wolfgang Franke and Chen Tieh Fan, Collected, Annotated and Edited, Chinese Epigraphic
Materials in Malaysia (Volume ⅠⅡ Ⅲ), Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1985.
Shiaw-Kuan Teoh, Epigraphic Inscriptions of Penang Hokkien Cemeteries, Singapore:
Singapore Society of Asian Studies, 1997.
12
Nanyang was used chronically as an idiom among Chinese all over the world, which preferred
to Malaysia archipelago. By the late Qing dynasty, it almost equal to Malaya and Singapore,
however, the word “southeast Asian” was replaced Nanyang since 1940s.
13
Chee-Beng Tan, Chinese Peranakan Heritage in Malaysia and Singapore, Kuala Lumpur:
Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. BHD, 1993.
Ho-Eng Seng, Problems of Identity Among the Overseas Chinese: A Historical Examination of
the Baba Chinese in Penang, Honors Essay for the Major in Social Science, Stanford
University, Department of Anthropology, 1986(personal communication).
14
Interviewed with Kim-Hong Tan (17/07/2006,morning)
15
Zhaohui Liu, Beyond Peasant Society: History, Culture and Social Structure in a Qiaoxiang
Village, BeiJing: Nationality Press, 2005, pp104-07.
14
References
⑴ Centennial Magazine of Penang Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Published by Penang
Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 2003.
⑵ Chee-Beng Tan, Chinese Peranakan Heritage in Malaysia and Singapore, Kuala Lumpur:
Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. BHD, 1993.
⑶ Ching-Hwang Yen, A Social History of the Chinese in Singapore and Malayan 1800-1911,
Siingapore: Oxford University Press, 1986.
⑷ Ching-Seng Lee, “One Nanyang, Different Interpretations: A Historical Evolution of the
Concept ‘Nanyang’”, Asian Culture No. 30, 2006, Singapore Society of Asian Studies,
pp113-23.
⑸ Fang-Ming Han, The Chinese and Modernization of Malaysia, Beijing: ShangWu
YinShuGuan. 2002.
⑹ Geertz Clifford, the Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York: Basic Books,
1973.
⑺ Gung-Wu Wang, The Chinese Overseas: from Earthbound China to the Quest for Autonomy,
Harvard University, 2000.
⑻ Gung-Wu Wang, Don’t Leave Home: Migration and the Chinese, Singapore: Times Academic
Press, 2001.
⑼ GuoTu Zhuang, Changing Social Status of Ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asian since World
War Ⅱ, Xiamen: Xiamen University Press, 2003.
⑽ Hong Liu, The Transformation of Chinese Society in Postwar Singapore: localizing Process,
Regional Networking, and Global Perspective, Xiamen: Xiamen University Press, 2003.
⑾ Kim-Hong Tan & Sin-Kiong Wong, edited, Studies on the Chinese in Penang, Penang: A Joint
Publication of Department of Chinese Studies in National University of Singapore and
15
Chinese Heritage Centre in Han Chiang College, 2005.
⑿ Liok-Ee Tan, Conjunctions, Confluences, Contestations: A Perspective on Penang History,
conference paper: “The Penang Story----International Conference 2002”, 2002, Penang of
Malaysia (personal communication).
⒀ Maurice Freedman, Chinese family and marriage in Singapore (Chinese edition), TaiPei:
ZhengZhongShuJv, 1985.
⒁ Neil Khor Jin Keong & Khoo Keat Siew, The Penang Po Leung Kuk: Chinese Women,
Prostitution and a Welfare Organization, Kuala Lumpur: The Malaysia Branch of the Royal
Asiatic Society, 2004.
⒂ Shiaw-Kuan Teoh, Epigraphic Inscriptions of Penang Hokkien Cemeteries, Singapore:
Singapore Society of Asian Studies, 1997.
⒃ Shiaw-Kuan Teoh, Historical Anecdotes of the Chinese in Penang, Kuala Lumpur:
Prometheus Enterprise Sdn.Bhd, 2002.
⒄ Shiaw-Kuan Teoh, Historical Anecdotes of the Chinese in Penang:Book Ⅱ, Penang: NanYang
Fieldwork Workshop, 2003.
⒅ United Hokkien Cemeteries 200, Penang: Board of United Hokkien Cemeteries, 1994.
⒆ Wolfgang Franke and Chen Tieh Fan, Collected, Annotated and Edited, Chinese Epigraphic
Materials in Malaysia (Volume ⅠⅡ Ⅲ), Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1985.
⒇ Yi-Yuan Lee, A transplanted town: A study on Chinese town life in Malaya, TaiPei: Centre
Ethnography Institute, 1970.
[21] Zhaohui Liu, Beyond Peasant Society: History, Culture and Social Structure in a Qiaoxiang
Village, BeiJing: Nationality Press, 2005.