like the topic, was there every any record or reference that malaysia or one of its former form ever practiced slavery? i'm not talking about those isolated cases where the employer abuses his/her employees like slaves, but rather large scale slavery like in america or england.

this question popped in my mind suddenly today. and as far as i can remember, i've never read anything of the sort. slavery have been practiced all over the world since god knows when till 1900. portuguese, dutch and english conquered the malay peninsula. the arabs, indians and chinese freely traded during those times as well. these cultures have practiced some form of slavery. would it possible that none of them brought slavery system to the malay archipelago?

or did this particular part of the history got written off?

If ever there was, probably we were the slaves.

Anyways feels that way come monday, back to work!!

Of course there was. Hutang is not a new phenomenon.

Dictionary:

slave |slāv|
noun chiefly historical
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
• a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation : by the time I was ten, I had become her slave, doing all the housework.
• a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something : the poorest people of the world are slaves to the banks | she was no slave to fashion.
• a device, or part of one, directly controlled by another : [as adj. ] a slave cassette deck. Compare with master 1 .
• an ant captured in its pupal state by an ant of another species, for which it becomes a worker.
verb [ intrans. ]
work excessively hard : after slaving away for fourteen years, all he gets is two thousand.
• [ trans. ] subject (a device) to control by another : should the need arise, the two channels can be slaved together.
ORIGIN Middle English : shortening of Old French esclave, equivalent of medieval Latin sclava (feminine) ‘Slavic (captive)’ : some South Slavic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th cent.

the malay word 'hamba' implies that very clearly. but 'tuan hamba" is used in two context: 1. like the english "master" or "mister" in terms of household, learning institution, etc. to mean respect; and 2. literally "my master" i.e. you who possess my service.

Some Japanese who came over from Indonesia during the war brought their slaves but almost all were freed after the war. Many stayed on because they did not have the means to go back. Slaves as in hamba, may still be in parctised during the Sutanate and maybe prevailing till now in Kelantan. They always address themselves thus. Not sure of "Hamba Abdi" though. But of course I'm always wrong in these matters.

This post has been edited by inoitu: Oct 3 2008, 06:54 AM

so u mean they re japanese slaves? sexslaves? geisha?

Abdi in malay is derived from the arabic word 'abd, which means servant. In other words they are linguistically equivalent. But the usage is different. Abdi as used malay means slaves, because in the arabic 'abd was used in Jahili times to mean slaves: as properties that can be bought and sold.

Sultans of the past possess hamba because of the protection and sustenance their "lowly" subjects enjoy. These subjects address themselves as 'hamba', but none that I know off sell or bought slaves. And in Kelantan the use of that word survives to this day to refer to oneself is an act of humility not to offend others being addressed in a conversation.

Abd Allah as in the slave of God or servant of God is precise in meaning because we do not own our own selves: God the Creator, gave us our souls, our existence, thus He owns us. Therefore, we must serve Him without question, preferably out of love of Him and not being force to do so by other than He.

if you talk about Malaysia (1963 and later), then NO... cause the Constitution denotes every man is a free man.

during the days of Malay Sultanates - yes... you can refer to writings like Tun Sri Lanang's (even though many of them are mere fictions), feudalism does allow "slaves" but to what I know so far, the "slaves" were not harm like those Africans slave to Europe and Americas. In fact the Malay Kings take care of their welfare, like shelter, clothing, food and all their basic necessities.

the term slave is merely because they are not directly paid or have the freedom to work out their own lives.

i'm not referring to the word hamba, which is why i was specific to use the english word = slavery. i know in bahasa it would translate into the word hamba, and could be confused between classic first person reference and the practice of hamba abdi.

so up to this point, no record or reference yet.

---

Added on October 3, 2008, 7:28 amfeudalism is not slavery. slavery is when the slave have no gain or benefit whatsoever and treated like a property (that could be bought or sold) and actually valued as lesser than of normal human life.

in the malay sultanates, there are people who serves the sultan, given the title of the royal subjects, and are regarded as a higher status (although not royalty) in the community. they certainly are not slaves, since they (especially the gundiks and dayangs) are given protection and benefits by the sultans. they are also free to leave (although doing so means they have to leave their homes on the sultan's kingdom).

This post has been edited by azarimy: Oct 3 2008, 07:28 AM

Geisha is not a slave, literally. They are entertainers.

jadi konklusinya - azarimy - tiada perhambaan di Malaysia atau Tanah Melayu? will you rest you case here... that's why I put "slaves" in quotes - coz White people will reckon those people as actual slaves...

They were from one of the islands down there, mostly men doing menial work for the "masters". Didnt hear anything about sex with the men.

in modern malaysia,there are slaves who exist....which i can say tat:

UMNO = Master

MCA,MIC,GERAKAN = UMNO's slaves

technically this is incorrect. because the minorities enjoy rights and privileges not enjoyed in their native lands. their lives are better here, and they do not want to leave here because there is no such rights and privileges in their native lands; e.g. China or India. Unlike what happened to the Jews and the Blacks or other minorities in other parts of the world, like the Malays in Singapore. Their history is completely rewritten and they are sytematically reduced from being the "master" of their land to living at the mercy of others.


en masse slavery like what happened to the Jews under the Babylonian Kings, and Egytian Pharoahs; the African slaves in the Americas, NO, there is not such a thing here in this part of the world.

Slavery was common place during the heyday of the Greeks and the Romans. Ironically, the Greek philosophers talk about democracy but women during their times were treated like slaves: they can be bought and sold like property.

In malaysia i dont know but last time before the japanese of British came over, there were history of slavery,\

Owe people money: U be his slave until u clear ur deabt
Slavery to king: U get paid as a slave

well, i'd like to conclude by saying "slavery never took place in malaysia", but just bcoz i couldnt find any material on this doesnt mean it never happened. so it's not as simple as that.

u have a source? i know the arabs do enforce u to become a slave to pay off ur debt, but i couldnt find any reference that it is also been practiced here.

if u get paid, that's not a slave. that's a servant.

the arabs in pre-Islamic times, Jahili period, never force anyone to become a slave to pay off debts. THis is economically unsound. Why force for free service and having to provide for shelter and sustenance when you can get economic gain albeit over a long period from anyone? In fact the abolition of the riba system called riba jahiliyah during the Prophet's Farewell pilgrimage is precisely to do away with oppressive debts, but the Arabs never enslave anyone for that. A whole tribe used to be indebted to another tribe because of riba jahiliya. If they do take slaves, they are from those not of the Arab blood, case in point Bilal, the first muazzin in Islam. Previously he was a slave and was tortured because he excercises his will to choose Islam against his non-Muslim master's choice.

in islamic times, slavery was replaced with wali and mawla, master and servant. The compensation or renumeration can be argued; however this arrangement is entered into voluntarily, for protection and sustenance purposes.

it is true that the closest thing to slavery here is during the japanese occupation. but they called it forced labor.

we did have it, birch was killed cause of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W.W._Birch

yaya... sejarah book got say b4

dalam cerita p.ramlee adaaa

Cerita p.ramlee if you referring to Ali baba Bujang lapok and others with arab themes in them, p.ramlee was juxtaposing in a creative and "imaginative" way themes from Arabic folktales, since a lot of Malay cerita-cerita came from Arabic folktales. Tiga Abdul, for example, is a story based on a famous generous icon in Middle East folklore called Hatim Tai...

But we are not going to analyze P.Ramlee's movies.

As for the wikipedia source, Birch as British Resident who interfered in the running of the state by the then ruler. British Resident was "given" power to 'advise' the ruler then, and with British might behind them, "it was said that they interfered in the implementation of the Rulers' prerogative."

I have not heard of Birch trying to emancipate orang asli. Or is this a new effort at rewriting history in the hope of trying to make them moral victors, which I think they were not. And I suspect that very much since the British were the ones responsible for bringing the Indians and Chinese minorities here for cheap labor.

Watch Amistad or Roots ( or something to that effect) and I think we can all feel what it is like to be uprooted, transplanted and beaten to work and treated like animals in a foreign land only to be forced to practice a religion and way of life not your own and forced to call it your own because you do not know any other.

---

Added on October 3, 2008, 12:57 pmCerita p.ramlee if you referring to Ali baba Bujang lapok and others with arab themes in them, p.ramlee was juxtaposing in a creative and "imaginative" way themes from Arabic folktales, since a lot of Malay cerita-cerita came from Arabic folktales. Tiga Abdul, for example, is a story based on a famous generous icon in Middle East folklore called Hatim Tai...

But we are not going to analyze P.Ramlee's movies.

As for the wikipedia source, Birch as British Resident who interfered in the running of the state by the then ruler. British Resident was "given" power to 'advise' the ruler then, and with British might behind them, "it was said that they interfered in the implementation of the Rulers' prerogative."

I have not heard of Birch trying to emancipate orang asli. Or is this a new effort at rewriting history in the hope of trying to make them moral victors, which I think they were not. And I suspect that very much since the British were the ones responsible for bringing the Indians and Chinese minorities here for cheap labor.

Watch Amistad or Roots ( or something to that effect) and I think we can all feel what it is like to be uprooted, transplanted and beaten to work and treated like animals in a foreign land only to be forced to practice a religion and way of life not your own and forced to call it your own because you do not know any other.

This post has been edited by zuth: Oct 3 2008, 12:57 PM

siapa kata tanah melayu tak pernah ada perhambaan?

baca balik kenapa pembesar2 melayu di Perak marah bila JWW Birch mahu menghapuskan amalan perhambaan yang sudah menjadi tradisi melayu Perak.

In Malaysia, there were only sex slave

---

Added on October 3, 2008, 5:43 pmWow malayneum.....didnt expect this to come from u...


This post has been edited by WaCKy-Angel: Oct 3 2008, 05:43 PM

debt slaves exist from the roman time till the arrival of islam. there are lots of reference to it in wikipedia.

it is not economically unsound. the person in debt will become a slave. this effectively turns them into a property, an asset that could be sold or traded off by its master. only when islam came that the slaves are allowed to earn a living to support themselves. else all the work they do and the profits belong to the master.

excellent. just what i've been looking for.

i knew we cant be totally free of slavery.

THis fact in wikipedia is worth examining further.

After 1300 years, following the opinion above, Islam in the Malay lands must have been in reverse for us to believe that Raja Abdullah of Perak in 1800s still resort to slavery. Parameswara 1400s, no case of slavery. Sultans of Melaka, before they vanished, no report of selling slaves. Kedah Sultanate, not slavery, Terengganu no slavery.

Why Perak, Sultan Abdullah, a remote report of slavery? And Birch trying to emancipate slaves? Something fishy, I'd say.

I think the Colonisers who transported masses people from their native lands and forced them as cheap labor are more guilty of slavery.

I would not be too quick to accept wikipedia on this matter.

But as opinions go, they are mere opinions.

its form 1 history text book lol?
They are not servants, they were forced to be slaves, but as a slave of the king, they get paid. Its has something to do with proof of loyalty

this is what i meant when i said "dont translate" in the first page.

the history textbooks use "memperhambakan diri kepada sultan". this does not mean "to enslave oneself to the sultan", but rather "to serve or to become a humble subject to the sultan". there's a big difference. to become a subject, u can do this voluntarily. and u can voluntarily leave. slaves dont leave. they either released, sold or die.

If we were free from slavery, I think we would have heard the government trumpeting our civilization as slavery-free, which equates us to be a million times better than the West, bla bla bla bla....a bazillion miles away.

But of course, since we are having this discussion.........

so basically, we're talking less of the existence of one guy being subservient to another, but more of the institution whereby humans are traded?

back to azarimy's point of a slave leaving and all that, i think the social struccture of a feudalism itself becomes an enslaving institution. back then, there were no nation states, so each 'state' is basically whatever lord you put yourself under. in all such societies, and in asian ones in particular, there's a stigma of disloyalty for one that chooses to leave. traitor and all that.

so... in a sense, you're bonded to your lord not in a mere contractual basis, but in a social sense too. of course, they don't get traded.

one can look at the cases of criminals sent to the mines. throughout history, most slaves were captured war prisoners, of which tanah melayu is, and has always been, sparsely populated. nevertheless, i figure an empire as malacca will naturally bring about a slave market. most feudal systems don't do well if everyone gets paid.

what about those POW during the second world war, alot of them being sent by the Japanese to built the Burma death railway