A Colloquium on Southeast Asian Studies 9789814376914

Citation preview

A COLLOQUIUM ON SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES

The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies was established as an autonomous organization in May 1968. It is a regional research centre for scholars and other specialists concerned with modern Southeast Asia. The Institute's research interest is focused on the many-faceted problems of development and modernization, and social and political change in Southeast Asia. The Institute is governed by a twenty-four member Board of Trustees on which are represented the National University of Singapore, appointees from the government, as well as representatives from a broad range of professional and civic organizations and groups. A ten-man Executive Committee oversees day-to-day operations; its ex-officio chairman is the Director, the Institute's chief academic and administrative officer.

A COLLOQUIUM ON SOUTHE AST ASIAN STUDIE S

Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah 22-26 November 1977

Edited by TUNKU SHAMSUL BAHRIN CHANDRANJE SHURUN A. TERRY RAMBO

Institute of Southeas t Asian Studies

The publication of this volume was made possible by a grant from the Asia Foundation

First published in 1981 by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Heng Mui Keng Terrace Pasir Panjang Singapore

© Tunku Shamsul Bahrin 1981 ISBN 9971 902 33 8 Hardback

Printed by United Selangor Press Sdn. Bhd., No.8 & 10, JalanLengkongan Brunei, Pudu, KualaLumpllr

CONTENTS Page Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Introduction Contributors

VII

ix

xi xiii XV

PART I TEACIDNG AND RESEARCH THE CONCEPTUAL THEORIES 1. Southeast Asian Studies: Problems and Potentialities East and West ..................... Lauriston Sharp 2. Southeast Asian Studies: Some Unresolved Problems .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kernial Singh Sandhu 3. The Challenge of Diversity: Southeast Asian Studies and the Development of Social Science .. Hans-Dieter Evers

3 15 28

THE EXTRAREGIONAL EXPERIENCE 4. Southeast Asian Studies in Australia ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swami Anand Haridas 5. Southeast Asian Studies in France ...... Denys Lombard 6. Southeast Asian Studies in the United Kingdom ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David K. Bassett 7. Southeast Asian Studies in the United States: Towards an Intellectual History ............... David L. Szanton

36 50

58 72

THE REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE 8. Southeast Asian Studies in Indonesia .. Harsja N. Bachtiar 9. Southeast Asian Studies in Malaysia ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tunku Shamsu/ Bahrin 10. Southeast Asian Studies in the Philippines ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . Patrocinio D. Isleta & Mi/agros R. Espinas 11. Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore ...... Chia Lin Sien 12. Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand ....... Patya Saihoo

88 98 107 118 134

THE PROBLEMS OF TEACHING AND RESEARCH 13. Library Needs for Southeast Asian Studies . Lim Pui Huen 14. Promising but Reluctant: Southeast Asian Studies in Thailand .................. Sombat Chantornvong & Thak Cha/oemtiarana

145

171

VI

CONTENTS PART II ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Page

15. Environment and Development: The Place of Human Ecology in Southeast Asian Studies Programmes .... A. Terry Rambo Asia: Trends, Southeast in Development and Environment 16. Themes and Issues .............. ....... Jeff Romm 17. Development, Environmental Quality and the Quality of Life in Peninsular Malaysia ....... Michael R. Moss & S. Robert Aiken 18. Environment Implications of the Mekong Development Programme ............. ............ V. R. Pantulu 19. Development and Environment in Thailand ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhira Phantumvanit 20. Review of Environmental Affairs in Indonesia ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Otto Soemarwoto 21. Research and Teaching on Human Ecology in Malaysia .............. .............. ...... Jose I. Furtado 22. Human Ecology in the Philippines: Developments in Research, Teaching and Applications ................ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James N. Anderson 23. Environment Education Needs within A Southeast Asian Studies Programme .......... W. Donald McTaggart 24. The Man and Biosphere Programme (MAB) in Asia and the Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wolfgang Vollmann

185 195

219

233 248

256 270

275 289 302

Foreword It gives me much delight to contribute a Foreword to this publication which represents the efforts of an excellent example of academic cooperation and organization in the area of Southeast Asian Studies in the region itself. An academic conference may be judged by the content of the papers presented and by the quality of exchanges during the ensuing discussions. The breadth and depth of these two aspects are demonstrated by the contents of this book. Although the ambience and superb physical and domestic aspects of the conference are not mentioned, allow me to record the consensus of opinion that they were of the usual level of Sabah hospitality which ranks in the upper echelons of regional and international generosity. For all this, the academic, professional, administrative and political worlds are greatly indebted to the Sabah Foundation which exceeded itself in making the necessary funds available and in keeping the hospitality at its warmest throughout the conference. We are also grateful to the Sabah Government which supported the organizers at every turn. After all that, what is there to say? There are two serious aspects of the publication of these proceedings that deserve our attention. Firstly, these papers should be extremely useful to universities that have developed courses in Southeast Asian Studies and to other institutions where such courses are being contemplated. Furthermore, we are provided with a sound body of factual material as well as theoretical expositions that should prove most helpful to teachers in this area. Secondly, to me personally, this conference represents a stage further in the realization of the need for a regional university where many aspects of specific knowledge can be studied through a regional orientation in an institution that is thoroughly imbued with a regional prospect. The participants, the supporters and the readers owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Professor Tunku Shamsul Bahrin and Professor J Chandran for their untiring efforts in successfully inviting a galaxy of writers and participants and for managing the conference so efficiently and pleasantly. '

ROYAL

PR~NGKU Vice-Chancellor University of Malaya

A. AZIZ

Preface The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies is an autonomous research centre for scholars and other specialists concerned with modern Southeast Asia, particularly the multifaceted problems of development and modernization, and political and social change. The Institute is supported by annual grants from Singapore and other governments, as well as donations from international and private organizations and individuals. It has neither students nor teaching functions, being purely a research body. In addition to support staff, the Institute has 25 to 30 academics and other specialists working at the Institute at any one time. About half of these are Southeast Asians, including Burmese, Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos, Singaporeans, Thais, and Vietnamese, and others come from as far afield as Europe, Japan and North America. Though from different disciplinary and national backgrounds, all these scholars share a common concern, that is, an interest in the problems of Southeast Asia. They function as a community of scholars and interact among themselves and with the public at large through a series of seminars and professional meetings. Their research findings are published through various outlets of the Institute and distributed all over the world. In other words, the Institute is not the proverbial ivory tower. Its involvement in the region's affairs is both direct and contemporary. It seeks to be not only a research organization devoted to nurturing a scholarly environment conducive to maximum intellectual creativity, but also one that is keenly alive to public issues and needs. In this light it was quite natural that we should get involved in an effort to take stock of some of the critical areas of concern necessary to a proper U?-derstanding of Southeast Asia. The setting for this occasion was the Sabah Conference on Southeast Asian Studies held in Kota Kinabalu in 1977. The Conference attracted a large number of scholars and other specialists from both within and outside the region, and the volume that follows is based on papers specially written for the meeting. Though the editorial process has taken much longer than originally anticipated, Professor Tunku Shamsul Bahrin and his co-editor, Professor Chandran Jeshurun, are to be congratulated for persevering with their task and seeing the papers through to publication stage. This is especially so as the papers retain their significance despite the passage of time. Moreover, the Conference itself represented a bench-mark in Southeast Asian Studies in the region in that, inter-alia, it was the first attempt of its kind in the

X

region on the status of Southeast Asian Studies. The Sabah Government and other supporters of the Conference can, therefore, quite rightly feel all the more pleased with making the meeting possible. Let us hope this is just but a beginning in their interest in the matter and that we can look forward to their continued assistance and involvement in Southeast Asian Studies. In the meantime it is to be hoped too that these papers will circulate widely amongst all those concerned with Southeast Asian Studies. Finally, in wishing A Colloquium on Southeast Asian Studies all the best, it is, of course, clearly understood that the responsibility for facts and opinions expressed in it rests exclusively with the authors and their interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Institute or its supporters. KERNIAL S. SANDHU Director Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

Acknowledgements The organizers of the Conference on Southeast Asian Studies would not have succeeded in their pioneering effort, particularly in view of the bold step they took in holding it in Sabah, without the assistance and support of numerous persons and institutions. A special vote of thanks must be recorded to the Honourable Datuk Harris Salleh, Chief Minister of Sabah, and his Deputy, the Honourable Datuk James P. Ongkili, for without their enthusiastic approval and active interest in the Conference it is unlikely that such a major enterprise would have been staged at all. At the University of Malaya itself the organizers were fortunate in having had the expert and dedicated administrative help of Mrs. Rita Sreenivasan, Assistant Registrar in the Faculty of Arts and Social Science, who with her team of workers from the Dean's Office handled all the vital paper work and correspondence. Special mention must also be made of the assistance rendered by Dr. K. K. Nair, Dr. Nik Safiah Karim and Dr. Tjoa Hock Guan. At the Sabah end, the organizers were given every possible support and advice by a Committee that had been set up by the State Government under the Chairmanship of Mr. Kamaruddin Lingam (up to September 1977) and Mr. Fred Solibun (from October 1977). The organizers are indeed indebted to Mr. Lingam and Mr. Solibun and their efficient assistants and colleagues who rendered yeoman service and saw to every detail of the Conference in Kota Kinabalu. Although a host of institutions within the public and private sectors was involved in the Conference in one way or another, it is with much pleasure that the organizers would like to express their gratitude to the following for their generous fmancial support: Prime Minister's Department, Malaysia Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, Malaysia Sabah State Government The Sabah Foundation International Development Research Centre The Ford Foundation The Asia Foundation Lee Foundation Pernas Trading Sdn. Bhd. Sime Darby (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. Messrs. Sperry Univac (Hong Kong) Cycle and Carriage Bintang Bhd.

Xll

In the publication of this volume of the proceedings of the Conference the editors were greatly assisted by the advice and comments of the Director ofthe Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Professor Kernial S. Sandhu. They would also like to record their appreciation of the help that was given by Mrs. Triena Ong and Ms. Ooi Guat Kuan, the Editors of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. We are particularly grateful to Royal Professor Ungku A. Aziz, Vice Chancellor ofthe University of Malaya, for the continued interest he has shown in the introduction of Southeast Asian Studies in Malaysia and for doing us the honour of writing the Foreword. In typing the manuscripts and for general administrative assistance, we would like to thank the following: Mrs. Chan Chi Hong, Mrs. Yap Gaik Lean and Miss Kamsiah Ali of the Department of Geography, and Mrs. Lau Beng Thye ofthe Department of History, University of Malaya. This publication was made possible by a generous grant for that purpose from The Asia Foundation in Kuala Lumpur whose support is gratefully acknowledged. Last but not least, we would like to express our gratitude to the contributors in this volume for their forbearance and patience during the long wait before actual publication. Needless to say, the editors must assume full responsibility for the overall structure and the editing of the contents of this book. Pantai Valley Kuala Lumpur June 1981

Tunku Shamsul Bahrin Chandran Jeshurun

Introduction The University of Malaya can be justly proud in having pioneered the teaching of Southeast Asian Studies as an undergraduate programme in its Faculty of Arts and Social Science in 1976. The degree of Bachelor of Arts in Southeast Asian Studies has now been awarded annually since 1979 and the Faculty of Arts and Social Science is actively developing a number of other fields of studies partly as a follow-up of the successful introduction of the multi-disciplinary Southeast Asian Studies programme. In order to commemorate the launching of the University of Malaya Southeast Asian Studies programme as well as to consider the "State of the Art" internationally, so to speak, the Faculty of Arts and Social Science organised a Conference on Southeast Asian Studies from 22-26 November 1977. It was an unique Malaysian event in more than one way for the organisers selected Kota Kinabalu, the capital of the State of Sabah in Malaysia, as the venue for such a select academic gathering. On the international plane, too, it was felt that Kota Kinabalu would ideally represent the 'hub' of Southeast Asia and offer foreign scholars who have long worked on various corners of the region a rare opportunity of visiting the island of Borneo. As it turned out the organisers were more than gratified by the spontaneous response of both benefactors as well as participants to the idea of such a Conference and it was with much reluctance that the actual number attending had to be limited. As one foreign scholar at least remarked subsequently, the timely nature of the meeting was further enhanced by the appropriateness of the venue at the foot ofMt. Kinabalu, the highest point in Southeast Asia. The Conference itself was divided into severallevels:(i) a number of distinquished individuals were specially invited to deliver key-note addresses on selected topics encompassing the entire range of what Southeast Asian Studies constitute; a concerted attempt was also made to obtain a comprehensive account ofthe individual experiences of Southeast Asian Studies in different countries and their Country Reports formed an important element of documentation at the meeting; (ii) in response to the many requests from individual scholars Panels were also organised to enable them to discuss their own specializations and an impressive range of SO papers based on original research was presented; and (iii) special workshops were held to probe into various details of teaching, research and library aspects of Southeast Asian Studies.

xiv

Thus, by its very nature, the complete proceedings of the Conference did not lend themselves easily to early publication and both problems of communication with individual authors as well as the technical difficulties of editing effectively prevented the organisers from embarking upon an immediate publication. Subsequently, it was found that most of the academic research papers were better published in the many journals that deal with Southeast Asian Studies and the organizers took a decision in 1978 to edit only two sets of papers each of which has its own intrinsic value and relevance to the development of Southeast Asian Studies. The first set that the organizers felt was imperative for publication comprised the Country Reports detailing the practices and institutions involved in Southeast Asian Studies in a number of countries. After much deliberation the editors feel that the compilation presented in this volume is a fair and accurate survey of the situation as it obtained in 1978 in ten countries, five of which are within the region itself. It must be stressed that their publication serves mainly as a useful record for reference purposes and does not pretend to be an up-to-date picture of the situation at the current moment. Incorporated in this section is also a number of serious works which the editors feel will serve to stimulate a more meaningful discussion of Southeast Asian Studies programmes in the future. The second set presented here in Part II grew out of the efforts of Dr. A. Terry Rambo, who was then a lecturer in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology of the Faculty of Arts and Social Science at the University of Malaya in gathering together specialists interested primarily in ecological and environmental issues as they relate to the development of Southeast Asian Studies. Dr. Rambo's personal endeavours in the compilation of these papers is duly recognised. Although the editors of Part I have had to pursue their task in rather inadequate circumstances and with little time at their disposal, they are nevertheless somewhat grateful of the fact that this book will commemorate the convening of the Sabah Conference and hopefully lead to great exchanges between institutions and individuals interested in Southeast Asian Studies. While Dr. Rambo was responsible for the initial stages of editing Part II the editors of Part I must, however, assume a certain degree of responsibility for the final preparation of the entire manuscript for publication. It is their profound belief that Southeast Asian Studies must ideally grow from within the region but with the fullest cooperation and assistance from major centres of learning outside Southeast Asia which are the historically earlier origins of this multidisciplinary field of studies. Pantai Valley Kuala Lumpur July 1981

Tunku Shamsul Bahrin Chandran Jeshurun

Contributors S. Robert Aiken is a lecturer in the Department of Geography, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. James N. Anderson is in the Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A. Harsja Bachtiar is Professor of History in the Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Tunku Shamsul Bahrin is Professor of Southeast Asian Geography, University-of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. D.K. Bassett is Director of the Centre for South East Asian Studies, University of Hull, Hull, England. Chia Lin Sien is Senior Lecturer in Geography, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore. Milagros R. Espinas is with the Institute of Asian Studies, Philippine Center for Advanced Studies, University of the Philippines System, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. Hans-Dieter Evers is Professor of Sociology in the University of Bielefeld, West Germany. Jose I. Furtado is Professor of Zoology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Swami Anand Haridas ts m the School of Human Communication, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia. P.D. Isleta is with the Institute of Strategic Studies, Philippine Center for Advanced Studies, University of the Philippines System, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. Chandran Jeshurun is Professor of Asian History, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

xvi Lim Pui Huen is Librarian of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. Denys Lombard is Professor at the Ecole Des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris, France. W. Donald McTaggart is in the Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A. Michael R. Moss is in the Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

V. R. Pantulu is with the Mekong Secretariat, Bangkok, Thailand. Dhira Phantumvanit is with the U.N. Environmental Programme in Bangkok, Thailand. A. Terry Rambo is a Research Associate in the Environment and Policy Institute at the East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. Jeff Romm is with the Ford Foundation, New Delhi, India. Patya Saihoo is with the Chulalongkorn University Social Science Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Kernial Singh Sandhu is Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. Otto Soemarwoto is with the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia. Sombat Chantornvong is in the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. Lauriston Sharp is Goldwin Smith Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Asian Studies at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A. David L. Szanton is a Staff Associate with the Social Science Research Council, New York, U.S.A. Thak Chaloemtiarana is in the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. Wolfgang Vollman is with the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand.

PART I Teaching and Research

1 Southeast Asian Studies: Problems and Potentialities East and West Lauriston Sharp Since the end of the American-Vietnamese war, most Southeast Asian nations have become more seriously concerned about improving international communications and collaboration among themselves than ever before. The several formal regional cooperative arrangements organized by their governments to deal with a variety of common area problems have now taken on a new life. At the same time, as regards higher education, officials of the governments and universities of these countries appear to show little, or at best, uneven concern for the organization and development of scholarly resources for research and instruction in the field of Southeast Asian regional studies. It is in this context of regional as well as national development that this conference has been organized to consider the problems and the potentialities of Southeast Asian area studies in Southeast Asia. At their best, what can such studies contribute to the increased stature and strength of each nation and of the region as a whole? What is "their best"? How can this best be established and maintained, and in how many institutions, when there are so many competing academic and research needs crying for development and so few human and material resources at hand to still these cries? First, area programmes as such will be considered and then attention will be turned to some of the difficulties experienced in the West in organizing and developing area programmes. Finally, it will be necessary to look with as little bias as possible at the Southeast Asian Studies programme which would support training and research on the area, in the area, by area scholars. The multidisciplinary study of a region, the area programme, is not a new thing in the history of mankind's conscious efforts to understand better the world in which he lives. Neither Greeks nor Chinese lumped together all the Barbarians or Man Ren beyond their borders; rather, they sought to distinguish and thus in a sense to understand Skythians and Ethiopians, Hiung Nu and Lolo. But their interest in such foreigners was immediate, practical, highly empirical, and short-lived. When the danger or interest passed, they turned back to their

4

real concern - themselves. These different foreigners were not seen a~ a possible basis for generalizing or theorizing about the nature of all mankind. In the academies, monasteries and eventually universities of the West, as in some of the yamen or bureaux of the mandarinate in China, scholars did indeed carry on systematic studies of an area and of its people, but the area was their own, the people, themselves. The focus of such studies, and of the constituent disciplines as these became differentiated, was for generations wholly confined to the scholars' own small segment of the world and to its limited population, and thus to the very restricted human behaviour and experience found in their own compound or backyard. When the scholars of these classical civilizations became aware of a need for theory, for comparison, for generalization about human behaviour, they turned to the experience of their own ancestors. There were not only Chinese dynastic histories, but commentaries on them. At the height of the Western Enlightenment, when the American founding fathers were struggling with the problems of establishing a wholly new form of government in the United States, James Madison made the special effort to provide a long scholarly comparative study of all confederations, past and present. But somehow there were omissions: no China (although China had been all the rage in Europe following Leibniz); no Indian states; no African states; no Siam (although Rama I at that very time was reconstructing his dismembered kingdom); no Incas; no Aztecs - all confederationist in a real sense! There followed then in the West the American educational endeavour, more massive and taken more seriously than anywhere else, expanding from universal primary to specialized postgraduate training. But all this educational enterprise amounted to little more than a single, if vast and complex, area and language programme focused on the North Atlantic cultural system and its background. In educating its young, Western civilization bestowed its attention almost exclusively on Western civilization. Seriously neglected were two-thirds of mankind, past, present, and future, including, of course, the Islamic, Indian, and Sinic civilizations of the East, even where they most notably conjoined with each other and with Europeans in Southeast Asia. For generations, Western curricula have built on the basic and biased assumption, implied and imparted, that the only aspect of the human enterprise that really mattered, that really affected us now and for the future, was the rise of the West, the development of the Judaeo-Hellenic-Christian tradition, culminating in the apparently triumphant North Atlantic civilization and its outlyers. We in the West are not the only sinners in ethnocentrism, and perhaps we could be forgiven that common fault if, in turning inward on ourselves, we had devised some sensible method or design for studying ourselves as a people in an area. The best we were able to do is probably most clearly represented by the organization and content of the Westt:rn university

curriculum. Here, traditionally, we not only left out the rest of the world, but our knowledge of our own part of it became divided and compartmentalized into quite artificial segments, which in turn have become rigidified, often in ways which reflect medieval as much as modern knowledge and modes of thought. To the humanities we have attempted to graft the separate social studies and natural sciences, but these too were fragmented and separated from each other. It was this quaint university structure, with its odd divisions and hierarchies of people and ideas, that we exported abroad as one of the most important formal symbols of the West's cultural imperialism. This particular cognitive view of the world is what reality is, the West said, and this is the way it ·should be organized and studied further. The Second World War raised serious questions regarding purpose and organization for Western universities, as for many other institutions all over the globe. In response to wartime calls from governments for specialists on world areas, many academic and other scholars who knew something of foreign parts - botanists and zoologists, geologists, geographers and mining engineers, linguists and anthropologists and a few historians - found themselves and their often too general or too narrow expertise involved in organizing and dispensing available and woefully inadequate information about strange places whose human or other resources might be of importance to the war effort. Thus, during the war years the cultural limitations of Western education were vividly brought home to many Westerners concerned with the prosecution of the war in geographical and intellectual regions far beyond their familiar world. By the war's end numbers of university people, particularly, had become convinced that to the conventional curriculum devoted to the West and its peculiar interests must now be added new studies dealing in some systematic fashion with the rest. Their ideas were soon realized in a few universities in the form of area and language programmes designed to seek some understanding of the behaviour of particular non-Western peoples, to develop basic knowledge which earlier had been unorganized or nonexistent, and to provide scholars trained for foreign area work where there had been few before. In the United States a year after the end of the war there were thirteen formally organized foreign area and language programmes, including fuur on the Far East. Five years later there were twenty-nine such programmes distributed among nineteen American universities and they dealt with all major areas of the world. One of these programmes, which was founded in 1950 and which has grown steadily in strength and stature through the third quarter of this century, is the Cornell University Southeast Asia Programme, a multidisciplinary teaching and research organization which draws on the resources of the entire Cornell community and is concerned with all of Southeast Asia as a region and with the individual countries of this complex area: Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

6

World War II had not only demonstrated to the founders of this Cornell enterprise (and to their supporters within and outside the University) the need for such academic programmes of instruction and research on foreign areas but had also provided hints of what would be required in the organization of viable and "useful" programmes if they were to serve effectively in meeting the need. Some of the general problems involved in the establishment and maintenance of a programme of Southeast Asian Studies in a modern university may be illustrated by the Cornell experience over the past twenty-five years. What investigation and teaching on little known overseas countries or regions there had been during the war suggested that it would be a costly business, both financially and intellectually, to organize old and build up new information on such areas and to recast our knowledge in more realistic forms. The financial effort is placed first because it was clear from the start that no new area studies programme could be initiated without funding over and above the normal resources of the university which was to be its base. In the late 1940s this financial problem led some government officials and scholars in America to consider the founding of some kind of national institute of area studies, something perhaps like the Singapore Institute of Southeast Asian Studies; but this idea was soon abandoned because instruction was a primary need, and both training and research could most effectively be carried on in the environment of a university with its wide range of support in personnel and material resources and without risk of draining away from faculties the few existing area specialists. While some government agencies supported or themselves pursued area or linguistic research, the development of foreign area and language programmes as we know them took place in academic settings both in the United States and elsewhere. All of us here are only too well aware that the financial resources of universities, whether government supported, as many are in Southeast Asia, or privately funded, or both (as is Cornell), are not unlimited. It is not surprising, then, that while national commissions or scientific bodies in England, France and the United States pointed to the need and called for the founding of academic programmes of instruction and research on foreign areas, not many western universities (and certainly few smaller colleges) felt they could afford to respond by establishing projects so untried, complex and costly in time, energy, ingenuity, and money. In spite of these difficulties, and usually on the basis of some preexisting specialized foreign academic interests in the institution, programmes nevertheless were founded or refurbished (e.g., the School of Oriental and African Studies at London) beginning in the late 1940s. In addition to often substantial appropriations from their own university resources, all required at first special outside financial aid, mostly government funding in Europe and Japan, and in America some government assistance to augment the major grants from private foundations, these last made with the understanding that eventually the universities would have to meet

7

most of the costs. This eventual drying-up of funds from the great foundations has taken place during the past few years, and now, to put it bluntly, all of us in American academic area programmes are hard pressed. These financial matters are given emphasis here because few outsiders (fortunately in the case of our more conventional colleagues) realize just how expensive an effective area programme must be. Teaching half a dozen or more languages from the beginning to an advanced level, with only a few students in each one, can be a tremendous burden, viewed by most deans as a pure luxury. Burdensome also are exotic library costs, publication subsidies, funds for needed study leave or field research, and fellowships for students who must spend extra postgraduate years acquiring area expertise in addition to their regular discipline training. In the beginning, few in my generation, however wary, quite appreciated how the costs would pile up over the years. During the process of obtaining initial funding, those of us organizing the Cornell Programme had to make some basic decisions regarding its scope and organization. Experience during the war had in general confirmed the scholarly claim that cultural systems must be studied as wholes, whether in terms of humanistic or practical and especially predictive interests: the languages and other symbolic systems, the technologies and social organization of a social unit can hardly be understood in isolation, but must be seen holistically in relation to each other. For a large or complex nation it was clear that the single scholar specialist, the Sinologist or Sanskritist, would no longer suffice; even for smaller social entities there must be micro and macro-studies in several disciplines and the whole placed in some degree of historical depth for any understanding of present or future cultural dynamics. Almost any modern foreign area study, whether of a single country or of several, would now require a combined and expensive crop of discipline-and-area specialists, and these would have to learn new habits of academic collaboration in research and instruction. An early decision was made at Cornell to emphasize the social studies, including history. The offering of language courses was taken for granted, and we began with Thai, Khmer and Vietnamese. The humanities were not to be forgotten, but would have to be built up more slowly, although a South and Southeast Asian art and archaeology course was given from the start. Specialized work in comparative literature, musicology and, of course, religion has since been added. A second decision, or set of decisions, concerned the geographical scope or coveragt: of the programme. Wartime research in terms of political or economic interests had shown clearly that the efficient unit of study must be the nation-state, and for some regions not only established states but also those "new" nations seeking birth or rebirth in the collapse of the colonial system. Geographical, biological and cultural data were and would be increasingly organized on a state or national basis; and

8 nation-states would be the movers or the pieces in international affairs. While Japan and China (about which we already knew something) and India (about which much less was known, even in England) would have to be dealt with as single complex units, it would simply be too costly to organize a whole array of discipline experts to deal with Thailand alone, or even Indonesia. There was general agreement that smaller nations, especially in "balkanized" regions such as Southeast Asia, must be studied in groupings on some rationalized regional basis, with area and discipline specialists when necessary, working on two or more countries. To cut short a long story of difficult decisions, we chose at first to neglect the Philippines which was being well taken care of in two or three other American universities. But this decision was soon nullified when our Economics Department quite independently hired a Philippine-Malaya international trade specialist, when we were able to work out between Los Banos and our College of Agriculture a mutually beneficial student and teaching exchange programme, and when large numbers of students appeared at Cornell wanting to work on the Philippines. Nascent Philippine interests began to surface at Cornell in agricultural economics, development sociology and other fields, and our Jacob Gould Schurman Collection provided a solid base for further library acquisitions; and so we have been concerned with the Philippines ever since. Earlier interests at Cornell in Mainland Southeast Asia - the Thailand Project and work on Burma and Indochina - tended to move us in that direction and away from the Malaya-Indonesian island world. There was even some talk with Yale about a national division of labour but the tragic deaths of Raymond Kennedy and then John Embree of Yale and our early appointment of George Kahin in political science soon ended that collaborative scheme. Cornell was thus left, as it is today, trying to cover the entire Southeast Asian region, and its nine nations. The war had also shown how badly understood were our western storehouses of information on non-Western areas. While something could be learned, of course, about Indochina in Paris or about Indonesia in Leiden or The Hague, incredibly little on these areas could be found in the British Museum or the Library of Congress during the war. Not only must our own libraries and museum study collections be built up, but in many of the non-Western countries themselves local archival and other research facilities would need development. And since it was further evident that for some regions adequate information for some aspects of modern scholarship simply did not exist anywhere, research programmes at home and in the field to collect and analyse such data, and publication programmes to desseminate them would have to be devised. Finally, came the mundane but practically difficult question of how to fit these varied activities and the people pursuing them into the conventional academic structure. Fortunately, Cornell was not wholly medieval in its organization. Not only did we have exotic faculties such as agriculture, nutrition, home economics, industrial and labour relations,

9

even a hotel school, but over them all we had a graduate faculty (the same people, by and large, also served the undergraduate divisions), and this was divided not into faculties, colleges or departments but into some seventy or more fields in any of which the student could work as made most sense for his special interests. The Ph.D. candidate might thus major in anthropology, minor in Southeast Asian Studies, and minor in agronomy because he was interested in the upland peoples of the region and their dry rice agriculture. More to the point for a Westerner seeking an academic job, he might major in modern European history and take his minors in Southeast Asian history or studies and, say, in comparative government. This flexible major and minors system meant that the advanced student need not concentrate exclusively on area work through the M.A. level, perhaps under a separate area institute, and then switch to begin his discipline studies to which he must devote himself almost exclusively through the Ph.D. level. From beginning to end the advanced discipline and area work proceed in parallel at Cornell. Doctoral degrees in area work alone, it may be noted, have been little favoured in America and are now practically extinct. This preexisting organization of the faculties and graduate work at Cornell permitted us, indeed, invited us to avoid the establishment there of an area programme which in essence would be an independent and probably, too, an isolated area institute or centre in which work would be conducted by a separate antonomous faculty group which might even offer its own certificates or degrees for area studies alone. Instead, our programme is essentially an all-university faculty committee made up of Southeast Asia specialists drawn from a variety of discipline departments located anywhere in the university structure. This arrangement provides for the area scholar and his students the dimension of a multidisciplinary working context in which their own discipline and area interests and competence can be developed in collaboration with others concerned with the same area and its problems. At the same time, these scholars are "at home" in their own discipline departments which initially appointed or accepted them, in which they are thus welcomed as full-fledged discipline members, and which thus gained a non-Western comparative perspective through including the exotic area expertise of respected and closely associated colleagues. Our experience at Cornell suggests that this structural arrangement has many viable advantages over the isolated area institute or centre. It has proved difficult in American universities to maintain undergraduate area concentrations or majors, even under such a broad rubric as "Non-Western Civilization". At Cornell the area programme faculty specialist offers undergraduate area courses in his own department, and the serious undergraduate student who plans to go on into foreign work may take these either as a concentration arranged by the programme or as work added to his regular discipline major for the B.A. or B.S .. Such a student is certainly urged by the programme at least to begin his language

10

training at this stage. Although thousands of Cornell undergraduates have taken courses on Southeast Asia, few have enrolled in our undergraduate Southeast Asia Studies concentration; and this does worry us, but we believe the better undergraduate under present academic arrangements must major in a discipline and thus be more readily acceptable for graduate work in a particular discipline to which area specialization may then be added. Once basic questions of scope and organization had been decided, initial funding obtained, and a small specialized faculty and eager fellowship students recruited and fitted into the academic structure, the Cornell Programme was still confronted by a number of practical or housekeeping problems. These need hardly detain us here, but it may be useful to cite a few which may also have to be faced by Southeast Asian Studies programmes in Southeast Asia. Still unresolved is the question of just how "international" should a university like Cornell be. To some of us, some of the old-line traditional departments - Classics, History, the European Literatures, and others - seem hopelessly parochial and ethnocentric and must be appeased when appointments are made of specialists in areas which to them are still wholly "foreign". Many of our scientific and technical colleagues are still not convinced that some knowledge of local cultures might make sense before architectural or regional planning projects are undertaken, or even before attempts are made to deal with a cattle disease or crop pest in a foreign area. Sometimes we have had to convince students of the scholarly dangers involved in succumbing to Central Intelligence Agency, newspaper or press agency requests that they do extra reporting while engaged in field research abroad; so far, we know of none who has been suborned by such offers. Perhaps because so many of these practical problems arose and had to be taken care of, but at a considerable administrative cost in time and energy, a number of larger problems which should have been dealt with still remain unresolved, and a sample of these should be noted. For such expensive and complex operations it is clear that more complementary arrangements, coordination, division of labour, and collaborations should have been worked out among different institutions with similar programmes. Yet with a few notable exceptions, this has proved to be extraordinarily difficult, especially among American universities even with the aid and advice of national organizations of scholars with special interest in area studies. As it is, programmes tend to go their own separate ways. Specialized area libraries, it is true, have shown a better sense of cooperation and a willingness to serve national and international as well as purely local interests; a major Cornell accomplishment is our John M. Echols Southeast Asian library collection, with its many special services for scholars everywhere. Responsible programme faculties have been no more able than their parent disciplines to decide just what kinds of information, and how much

II

of it, would be relevant to smne "understanding" of a foreign area. This may be just as well in a free market of ideas, but it has sometimes led to satisfaction with details and trivia just because they were there and foreign, and the evasion or postponement of much hard thinking on the possible practical or ideal goals of area studies and the best means of achieving such goals. A diversion to trivial matters has been less of a problem in teaching than in research; in the common area or country survey course there is pressure to determine what the essentials must be and there is little scope to deal with anything else. But in field research and research seminars there is a temptation to go on and on dealing with an endless array of local area materials while a confrontation with depth studies, comparisons, generalizations and universal history is put off. Littlr thought has been given to the related problem of "cultural imperialism" in area studies, the imposition of Western cognitive bias, modes of study, categories of analysis on non-Western cultural phenomena. Many Western scholars in the humanities and in some of the social sci80

--]

14

9

h

-C

HO with a development m1ss10n linked to a specific Southeast Asian institution, such as the special University of Ohio programme in Education at the University of Hue, or the long standing relationship of Cornell University with the University of the Philippines College of Agriculture at Los Banos. A common component of such programmes is support for graduate students conducting dissertation research on topics relevant to the local mission of the American university. Assured of funding, many of t>e students at those Universities did not bother to apply to the F AFP. In addition, a varying number of designated Southeast Asia Area Centers at American universities have been able to support student research through funds provided by the National Defense Education Act. Many of their students, however, also entered the competition for the FAFP awards. In effect, the FAFP, the Fulbright programmes, and the government-funded Area Centers have been the major continuous sources of support for dissertation research on Southeast Asia, and most of the students who have applied to one, have applied, where possible, to the others as well. In consequence, the 680 applications to the F AFP discussed below probably represent a substantial share - perhaps 60-80o/o - of all the proposals written for dissertation research in Southeast Asia by Americans from 1951 to 1977. If the sample is biassed in any particular direction, it is towards more purely "academic" topics, as opposed to "applied" issues, inasmuch as these latter would be more heavily represented in the research of graduate students at those American universities with development-oriented programmes in the region. While it would be ideal to be able to identify all of the American dissertation research proposals regarding Southeast Asia during this period, the more academic bias of the F AFP data should provide at least a reasonable basis for examining American intellectual interests in the region.

Analysis

Over the twenty-six-year period, 680 applications were submitted to the programme. Their distribution by year is plotted in Figure 1. It shows annual fluctuations between 10 and 23 applications per year for the period 1951 to 1966. But starting in 1967, two years after the commitment of American ground troops to Vietnam, the number of applications per year rises rapidly and fluctuates between 26 and 51. It fell sharply in 1974, but is currently on the rise again. This increase reflects both expanded enrollments in graduate schools generally, and an augmented interest in Southeast Asia in particular. Country Interests How these figures break down by country, is documented in Table 1. The dramatic rise in the number of proposals readily apparent in 1968 does not immediately represent a new mix of country interests. However, during the following peak period of 1969-73,

HI

applications for research on Vietnam sharply increased, only to fall to zero as the failure of the American effort there became apparent, and the possibility of conducting research in Indochina was more or less precluded.

Figure 1: Total Number of Applications by Year

so

40

30

20

10

0

51

53

55

57

59

61

63

65

67

69

71

73

75

77

H2

Perhaps, what is most immediately striking about Table 1 is the continuous interest in Indonesia throughout the twenty-six-year period. It accounts for 204, or 30o/o of the applications. Overall, Thailand ranks second, slightly ahead of the Philippines. Throughout the 1950s, proposals for research in the Philippines still outnumbered those on Thailand, three to two, but by 1960 the balance of interests shifts over to Thailand, underscoring the relative lack of a developed Philippine studies tradition in the United States, despite the forty-five years of colonial rule. Malaysia ranks fourth in interest to American academics, well behind the Philippines, if the entire period is taken into account. The degree to which colonial Malaysia was regarded as a British academic preserve is apparent from the mere 13 applications for research in the colony in the twelve years between 1951 and 1962. However, once Malaysia gained independence, the frequency of applications was comparable to that for the Philippines. Thus between 1963 and 1977 there were 84 applications for research in the Philippines and 80 applications for Malaysia. Singapore retains a low but similarly steady interest ever since its independence. The relatively little research interest expressed in Malaysia during the 1950s, while it was still under British control, contrasts with the continuous interest in Burma - already independent - during that same time period. But the "closing" of Burma, with the coming to power of General Ne Win in 1962 is equally marked. There were 24 applications in the 11 years up to then, followed by only six applications in the next fifteen years. But the record of American research interest in the countries of Indochina is perhaps the most depressing. Over the eighteen years between 1951 and 1968, there were only 23 applications for research on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia combined. Again, the presence of a colonial power seems to have inhibited American academics, with the result that very few Americans knew anything about Indochina when the United States went to war there. It is only by 1969, four years after American troops went into action and after enough time had passed for graduate students to have done sufficient background and language study to be able to seriously contemplate dissertation research, that the number of proposals becomes significant. Thus there are twenty-five proposals submitted in the six years between 1969 and 1974. In 1975 and 1976, however, with Communist control of the three countries, the number of research applications fell to zero. Clearly it was no longer possible for Americans to conduct field research in Indochina, but not even historical research in France is now being proposed. Vietnamese studies in the United States has now all but disappeared. The war created interest in Indochina, but growing perceptions of its futility (and immorality) have combined to turn Americans away. In consequence, students are no longer interested, the teaching jobs are gone, and graduate students are understandably unwilling to commit themselves to specializing on Indochina.

Finally, Table 1 also shows two five-year bursts of interest m multicountry studies. during 1951-55 and 1966-70. The proposals in the first period are largely focused on international political relations, especially Communist threats to the region, while the later group is primarily composed of comparative studies of modernization or development, in two or more countries. Disciplinary Backgrounds While many of the dissertation research applicants were associated with a Southeast Asia Studies Programme, in almost all cases they anticipated receiving their doctorate in one of the standard academic disciplines. Table 2 presents the disciplinary affiliation or primary disciplinary approach of the 680 applicants. The table is divided into three-year periods and documents the overwhelming dominance of anthropology and political science as sources of research proposals. Considering the entire twenty-six-year period, anthropology ranks first, but that is in large measure due to a sharp increase among anthropologists, and an extraordinary decline of interest among political scientists, over the last three years. Up to 1974, political science ranked first, accounting for almost one-third of the total, but whether because of new directions internal to the discipline, or events in the region, or a combination of the two, political science accounted for less than6% of the research proposals in the last three years. Political scientists appear to have given up, or backed off from their efforts to understand, or shed light on, the forms and uses of political power in Southeast Asia. In contrast, anthropology has become the totally dominant discipline, providing more than half of the proposals in the last three years. TABLE 2: RESEARCH PROPOSALS, BY DISCIPLINE, OVER THREE-YEAR PERIODS 1951-76*

51-52* 53-55 56-58 59-61 62-64 65-67 68-70 71-73 74-76 Total Anthropology Political Science History Economics Linguistics Sociology Education Geography Music Architecture/ Art History Theatre/Literature Psychology

14 18 3 3 2 2

Totals

46

2

IS

22

16 4 6 1 2 1 2

11

7 2 2 3

23 16 4 2

17 21 4 2 5 1 2

5 29 5 4 2 2 2 3

2

48

49

49

56

53

*The first column, for 1951-52, covers only a two-year period.

33 45 20 5 6 10 7 9 3

37 28 21 11 7 10 6 3 4

53 6 9 3 9 3 9 3 4

219 193

2 3

2

3

9 4 3

147

130

102

680

77

38 35 33 28 26 15

H4

Among the remaining disciplines, history ranks a clear third, with a fairly steady contribution to the field. Economics, Linguistics, Sociology. Education, and Geography each provide from 5.6 to 3.8o/o of the total, with only Linguistics and Education showing any signs of current growth. Psychology's showing is inconsequential. Perhaps most encouraging is the recent, but increasing, appearance of research proposals in Music, Art History, Architecture, Theatre and Literature. Up to 1967, proposals in these disciplines had been extremely rare, for in contrast with Japanese, Chinese or South Asian Studies, there was no American tradition of humanistic scholarship on Southeast Asia upon which to build. It now appears that that base is finally being constructed. Research Orientation

Disciplinary labels, however, are not always very helpful; very different kinds of topics and approaches have gone under the names political science, anthropology, history, etc. In addition, long-term intellectual trends have altered areas of interest both within and among these disciplines. Inspection of the 680 proposals suggested, however, that a broad - admittedly shopworn - distinction between "Basic" and "Applied" research would be useful in understanding some of the trends in their substantive concerns. Clearly, few projects are wholly one or the other; "applied" research often reveals important "basic" principles, and "basic" research often carries implications for action. None the less, it is possible to divide the proposals into (1) those primarily concerned with generating knowledge or understanding of a contemporary or historical aspect of a Southeast Asian society, for its own sake, "to fill a gap", or to develop or test a general theory, or (2) those primarily intended to illuminate a contemporary problem in international relations, or economic, social, or political development, in order to help bring about positive change. The product of this distinction is presented in Table 3 which gives the number of Basic and Applied research proposals over three-year intervals from 1951 to 1976. Most immediately striking is the near perfect split in the total, 342 Applied, 338 Basic. However, closer examination shows that during the two decades from 1951 to 1970, Applied proposals predominated, while in the last six years the situation is reversed. Indeed, between 1974-76, fully three-quarters of the proposals were for Basic research. It may seem ironic that an emphasis on applied research should have preceded a concentration on the more fundamental questions about the societies of the region. However, as noted earlier, America had no established Southeast Asian Studies tradition which might have suggested some of the unique and particular characteristics of the region and its component cultures. And clearly, there were practical political and economic problems in the region which affected Americans interests. As a result, many Americans felt little discomfort in attempting to directly

TABLE 3: PRIMARY ORIENT ATION OF RESEARCH PROPOSALS, OVER THREE-YEAR INTERVALS 1951-76*

Primary Orientation

51-52* 53-55

56-58

59-61

62-64

65-67

68-70

71-73

74-76 Totals

Applied

29

31

32

26

28

34

79

58

25

342

Basic

17

17

17

23

28

19

68

72

77

338

Totals

46

48

49

49

56

53

147

130

102

680

*The first column, for 1951-52, cOYers only a two year period.

X 'Jl

86 apply presumably universal models, concepts, and analytical tools, to the contemporary problems of the region. This seems to have been especially common in political science, where the great centre of interest has been in various aspects of "political modernization". Time and events, however, have demonstrated the inadequacy of the standard (Western) theories of modernization, and of economic and political development, slowly giving rise to increased interest in empirical examination of the "basics", in order to gain a better understanding of the fundamental (and sometimes uniquely) Southeast Asian units, structures, processes, and ideas that motivate action, and account for the cultures of the region. Many different kinds of evidence support the view that American scholars interested in Southeast Asia are now turning greater attention to understanding the region in its own terms. This is, of course, archetypally the approach of the anthropologist, and as we have seen, among those now starting their academic careers with an interest in Southeast Asia, the great bulk are doing so through anthropology. Similarly, the growth of interest in Linguistics and the several humanistic fields point towards the increased recognition of a need to examine the basic conceptual, intellectual and aesthetic units from which Southeast Asian societies are constructed. In fact, Table 2 understates the growth of humanistic interests in Southeast Asia. A full review of the proposals shows that since 1968, in addition to the twenty-two proposals in Music, Art History, Architecture, Theatre and Literature, twelve proposals in other disciplines were also directed to the arts and literature of the region. (Beyond these proposals, the new Committee on Southeast Asia is explicitly focusing its attention on Southeast Asian conceptual systems, as keys to improved understanding of the societies and cultures of the region.) In effect, as political events in the region continue to defy predictions, and the problems of development seem to remain intractable, American scholars have grown increasingly disenchanted with models and analyses, essentially based on Western experience, as useful means of understanding the dynamics of Southeast Asian societies. Increasingly uncomfortable with the inadequacy of their traditional intellectual tools of the trade, scholars in disciplines with strong universalizing or prescriptive tendencies, such as political science, sociology, economics, are backing away from previous interests in the region. On the other hand, scholars in the more descriptive disciplines, for example, anthropology, history, linguistics and the humanities, who tend to explore the internal logic of systems of ideas or actions, how they operate on the ground and in the particular, and also the processes by which they seem to be changing, are becoming increasingly prominent in American Southeast Asian Studies. And as might be expected, these shifts in the general intellectual atmosphere are showing up in the dissertation research proposals now being presented to the F AFP. For the health of the field, the "loss" of political science and economics is hopefully temporary. The subject matters with which they deal, the

K7

questions they typically raise, and the perspectives they bring, are of great value. Hopefully, current rising interest in political economy within those disciplines will bring them back afresh to Southeast Asia. Furthermore, this shift in orientation within Southeast Asian Studies in the United States in recent years seems to be part of a general intellectual trend visible in other areas on non- Western research as well. In this respect the field would appear to be continuing its early tendency to simply follow the current intellectual fashion. On the other hand, the current shift towards the study of the region for its own sake, the increasing examination of the societies and cultures of Southeast Asia in their own terms, the growth of historical and humanistic concerns, all suggest that Southeast Asia is no longer simply being regarded as a site for solving development problems, but rather that a genuine field of studies is beginning to emerge. This is, of course, not to say that American scholars are no longer interested in questions of "development" in Southeast Asia. Many such Americans still exist and continue to carry out research. Rather, it is to suggest that an increasing proportion of the younger scholars now entering the field - and their more senior mentors as well - are unconvinced of the relevance of the received wisdom on development, and want to reconsider the fundamental questions regarding the basic units, structures, values and processes, both social and cultural, which give Southeast Asian nations their particular character, and which must inevitably provide the foundations from which their future societies will evolve. This less immediately instrumental, far more interpretive, approach or set of concerns, may not correspond to the powerful focus on applied or utilitarian research which necessarily dominates the research agendas of the scholars in the countries of the region, but it may well represent the beginnings of intellectual maturity on the part of Southeast Asian Studies in the United States.

8

Southeast Asian Studies in Indonesia Harsja W. Bachtiar

Academic interest in foreign languages and cultures did not begin to emerge in Indonesia until the end of 1940 when the first Faculty of Letters and Philosophy was established in Jakarta, then better known as Batavia. The faculty offered four study programmes, namely, social economic study, Indonesian language and literature, or philology, history, and ethnology (volkenkunde). Instruction at the newly established faculty was given by five Professors, two Extraordinary Professors, and five instructors. In spite of the fact that, with the exception of two Indonesian instructors, the entire teaching staff consisted of Dutch scholars, academic interest in foreign languages and cultures gravitated towards Asian rather than European civilizations. Lectures on Dutch language and literature were given by two instructors, while lectures on Arabic, Islamic law, and Islamic institutions were the responsibility of an Extraordinary Professor as were those on the cultural history of South Asia. The cultural history of East Asia was taught by an instructor. Although attention was given to West Asia (with a focus on Islam), South Asia, and East Asia (particularly China), there was not yet any formal interest in the study of Southeast Asia. At present, on the other hand, there is increasing awareness that academic attention should also be given to the study of Southeast Asia as a whole as well as to its individual countries. In fact, it is increasingly felt as an embarrassment that the Indonesian academic community is more familiar with faraway European and American civilizations than with the civilizations of its near neighbours. Some of the academic interest in Southeast Asia is the natural consequence of tracing relationships and linkages between a given phenomenon in Indonesia itself with related phenomena outside the Indonesian archipelago. Interest in the study of Indonesian languages, for example, naturally leads to the necessity of studying the relationship between some of these Indonesian languages and related languages outside the boundaries of the Indonesian republic such as Malay in Malaysia and Tagalog in the Philippines. The study of Indonesian history naturally leads to the study of the manifold relationships between

individuals, peoples or states in Indonesia and individuals, peoples and states outside Indonesia, particularly in the neighbouring countries, which have existed in the historical past. A similar tendency is manifested in some other disciplines as well, such as in archaeology, anthropology, literature, political science, and economics. The growing academic interest in the study of Southeast Asia is strengthened, if not stimulated, by a politically motivated interest, more specifically in the endeavour to promote regional cooperation within the frameworkof accepted common goals such as those of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The regionally oriented political activities of the governments of ASEAN's member states stimulate considerable interest in Indonesia with respect to an increasing number of aspects of culture and society in its neighbouring countries which hitherto had been beyond the scope of interest of the individuals involved. The various regional projects of the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) also stimulate increasing interest in the neighbouring countries due to personal visits, stays of longer duration, or other types of regional activities. This increasingly strong sense of regional solidarity has, among others, found its expression at the wider international level in the form of the 'Study of Malay Culture' project, initiated by Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, and Indonesia and adopted by UNESCO as one of its projects. The project has been launched and developed as an endeavour to acquire more systematic knowledge about a major Southeast Asian culture and through its study to acquire formal international recognition of its existence. Regional cooperation in the execution of the project naturally generates interest in, at least, what the various counterparts in the participating countries are doing. The mass media has, of course, brought the Southeast Asian countries closer to the general public, although most of the information disseminated by these media tend to be on special events, conspicuous phenomena, and spectacular happenings. In spite of all these, it should immediately be admitted that increasing interest in Southeast Asia does not necessarily mean, and in Indonesia, in fact, unfortunately does not mean, a parallel increase in academic activities with respect to the study of Southeast Asia. The following report is a modest attempt to briefly describe the state of affairs of Southeast Asian Studies in Indonesia with the exclusion of what is generally referred to as Indonesian Studies. Academic Manpower

Not until the 1970s have serious efforts been made to get selected individuals trained to become specialists in the field of Southeast Asian Studies. A few individuals did, to be sure, participate in a Southeast Asian Studies programme at some American university, particularly Cornell and

90

Yale, in the period prior to the 1970s. But practically all of them concentrated their academic attention on the study of their own country of origin, Indonesia. There were also some individuals who went to study at one or two of the neighbouring Southeast Asian countries, such as at the Los Banos campus of the University of the Philippines. However, most, if not all of them, tend to concentrate on discipline-oriented studies rather than on the study of some particular aspects of the country in which they did academic work. No genuine Southeast Asia specialists have emerged from among these two categories of foreign-trained individuals. Since the beginning of the 1970s, a more deliberate effort has been made, and is being made, to create the much-needed Southeast Asia specialists. An anthropologist was sent to Bangkok to learn Thai and to do field work in southern Thailand; a linguist was sent to the Philippines to learn Tagalog and familiarize himself with the local language situation; a lecturer in literature was sent to Malaysia to study Malay literature as was an instructor in anthropology who was sent out to study Malay culture at the village level; and an epigrapher was sent to Paris to study the Khmer language in order to enable him to study the history of the ancient Cambodian empire. At the moment there is, therefore, a slowly growing group of promising scholars who are acquiring some expert knowledge in the field of Southeast Asian Studies, although at this moment none could be regarded as a specialist in Southeast Asian Studies in so far as Southeast Asian countries other than Indonesia are concerned. If membership in learned societies can be regarded as an indication of some sort of serious interest in the type of knowledge these learned societies are associated with, it is indicative of the still very limited interest in the study of Southeast Asian cultures and society that only three Indonesians are members of the Siam Society in Bangkok and only four such persons are members of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in Kuala Lumpur. It would perhaps be worthwhile to note that no use is made of specialists who are nationals of the respective areas to provide assistance in the further academic development of the budding Indonesian Southeast Asian Studies specialists. It does not take much imagination to recognize their great potential utility in facilitating the academic formation of these slowly emerging Indonesian specialists. Language Instruction

Already in the first years of the existence of the Faculty of Letters in Jakarta, the Dutch language was taught as an academic subject while all students were assumed to have at least a working knowledge of English, French and German. Dutch was, it should be recalled, the language of instruction at all institutions of higher education in pre- World War II colonial Indonesia. Arabic was taught to facilitate the study of Islamic

9]

civilization and Sanskrit was taught to facilitate the study of classical Hindu and Buddhist civilization. Interested students were given the opportunity to study Chinese in order to have access to the study of Chinese literature (mostly ancient literature) and history. Since the 1950s, the leading faculties of Letters tend to offer opportunities for language instruction in such European languages as English, French, and German - each ordinarily the responsibility of a separate department - and such Asian languages as Arabic and Sanskrit. Chinese, both classical and modern, and Japanese are only offered by the Faculty of Letters, University of Indonesia. But it should be emphasized that no Southeast Asian language is taught at any faculty of Letters or any university. In the pursuit of the study of Malay culture and society no serious difficulties are envisaged with respect to language competence in Malay, the national language of both Malaysia and Singapore, because of its close affinity with the Indonesian national language. However, special efforts have to be made to acquire language competence with respect to the many other Southeast Asian languages, particularly the major languages in Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and the Philippines. At the end of the 1950s, Tagalog was briefly taught by a visiting Philippine Professor of Linguistics at the University of Indonesia. The Faculty of Letters of this university plans to offer instruction in Tagalog starting with the beginning of the 1978 academic year. The language will be taught by an Indonesian linguist with the assistance of a native speaker. An Indonesian anthropologist has been assigned to study Thai in Bangkok to enable her to do research on Thai culture and society; and, as noted earlier, an epigrapher has studied the Khmer language in Paris to enable him to study ancient Cambodian inscriptions. The lack of opportunities in Indonesia to acquire at least basic language competence with respect to the major Southeast Asian languages is a serious deficiency in Indonesian higher education if Southeast Asian regionalism is to be regarded as one of the principal commitments of the nation. Without a command of the native languages of the Southeast Asian area in which some competence in the study of its culture and society is sought, the attainable competence will necessarily be of a rather superficial character. Superficial knowledge is, of course, rarely a strong basis for the acquisition of understanding and empathy. Courses

In some universities and institutes of teRcher training and education (IKIP) courses pertaining to Southeast Asia are offered as part of discipline-oriented programmes. Some relevant Southeast Asian information is incorporated in courses which do not deal especially with Southeast Asia or any of the countries in the region. Information on the

92

Dong-So'n culture is, for example, incorporated in the regular Indonesian-oriented prehistory course, while information on Thai Theravada Buddhism may be incorporated in an India-oriented course on Hindu and Buddhist civilization. No introductory survey course on Southeast Asia is offered at any institution of higher education in Indonesia. The idea of offering such a course as a general education programme for interested students who do not wish to specialize in Southeast Asian Studies but may benefit generally from exposure to knowledge about the cultures and societies in the neighbouring countries is still an alien idea which does not fit into the present structure of higher education in Indonesia. It is obvious, of course, that the availability of an introductory interdisciplinary survey course on Southeast Asia may stimulate interest among students who previously may not have had any interest at all in becoming specialists in Southeast Asian Studies and, accordingly, may motivate them to choose to become such specialists. Practically all courses on a Southeast Asian subject are limited to purely descriptive materials transmitted within a strictly disciplineoriented perspective. The absence of a more theoretical and methodological perspective does not prepare the students for competence in research work, nor does it prepare the students for adequate empathy and appreciation of the relevant culture and society. Some faculties of Letters offer a course on the history of Southeast Asia together with similar courses on other areas. An ethnographic survey course on Southeast Asia is also offered by these faculties, ordinarily as part of the more general anthropology programme. Some faculties of Social Science (mostly still designated as faculties of Social and Political Science) offer a course on government or politics in Southeast Asia. The faculties of Economics do not yet offer courses on the Southeast Asian economy. Unfortunately, even these limited opportunities are not yet fully utilized. The organization of the Indonesian universities is still structured in such a manner that it is difficult, if not impossible, for students who are not students of the faculty which offers a particular course to take such a course. The faculties of Teacher Training in Letters and Fine Arts of the !KIP's, such as the IKIP of Bandung and that of Padang, also offer a course on the history of Southeast Asia. This particular course does not differ very much in form and content from its sister course as offered at some of the universities, although students at the IKIPs are expected to become secondary school teachers while students at the universities are expected to become academically trained manpower in their respective disciplines. Programmes If a programme

IS

understood to be a set of courses specifically

designed to qualify interested students for competence in a given field of study, it should immediately be acknowledged that no academic programme for Southeast Asian Studies exists at any university in Indonesia. It is not yet possible to acquire a degree, or even a diploma, in the field of Southeast Asian Studies. Here again the persistence of the inherited essentially foreign (Dutch) academic tradition, supplemented by influences of such world powers as the United States, the USSR, and Japan, curiously but u!lderstandably allows for the possibility of acquiring a Sarjana Muda (equivalent to B.A.) and Sarjana (equivalent to M.A.) degree in Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, English, French, German, Dutch, and Russian languages and literature, but not yet in Southeast Asian languages and literatu~e, or in the study of language and literature of any of the neighbouring Southeast Asian countries. In fact, efforts are being made to transform some of the existing foreign language and literature programmes into area studies, such as Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and Americ~n Studies, extending the coverage of offered courses to areas of study beyond the confines of the more conventional language and literature courses. There are, to be sure, endeavours to design an academic programme in Southeast Asian Studies, with encouragement from various concerned government agencies, including the Department of Education and Culture and the National Planning Agency. However, the scarce relevant academic manpower and the organizational structure of the university which is, for all practical purposes, only an aggregate of autonomous faculties, still pose seemingly unsurmountable problems in designing a feasible plan of action for the adoption of a multidisciplinary programme in Southeast Asian Studies. To promote the development of area studies in the universities, it can be reported, the General Directorate of Higher Education has established an Interdisciplinary Consortium as one of 11 higher education consortia, each instituted to assist the General Directorate in planning and policy activities with respect to a circumscribed area of studies. One of the tasks of the Interdisciplinary Consortium, in addition to concerning itself with general education programmes, is to promote the formation and development of Southeast Asian Studies programmes in Indonesia. Research

Genuine scientific or scholarly research activities with respect to the study of cultures and societies in Southeast Asia outside Indonesia are still somewhat scarce in Indonesia. In the field of linguistics the close relationship between the Malay and Indonesian languages and the commitment of both the Malaysian and Indonesian governments to bring these two languages closer together, particularly with respect to scientific vocabularies, naturally attract much

94

interest to the study of both the Malay language and its literature. At the Faculty of Letters and Culture of Gajah Mada University at Yogyakarta, for example, a number of students wrote their required Sarjana thesis on some aspects of Malay language or literature. Siti Ismusilah wrote Tindjauan Struktur Bahasa Melaju Dari Kitab Sedjarah Melaju [Observations on the structure of the Malay language of the Malay Annals] (1960); C. Salombe wrote Pantjatantra Da/am Kesusasteraan Melaju [Pancatantra in Malay Literature] (1965); Busrodin wrote Hikajat Seh Abdulkadia (1965); and Zaniat Rahman wrote Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir Munsji Sebagai Penulis [Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir Munshi as a writer] (1968). The same faculty also produced a Sarjana thesis, written by Abdullah Dwijanto, on the end of French colonialism in Vietnam, entitled Berachirnja Kolonisasi Perantjis di Vietnam (1966). At least four individuals have chosen to write their doctoral dissertations on a non-Indonesian Southeast Asian subject. B.L. Sitorus has written an economic study entitled Productive Efficiency in Agriculture with special reference to the farm sector of Luzon in the Republic of the Philippines, as a Ph.D. dissertation for the University of California, Berkeley. Soemardi Reksopoetranto has written another economic study entitled Enhancing Indonesia's Long Run Economic Development within the Framework of Regional Economic Cooperation in Southeast Asia, a Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Pittsburgh; Sarjana Wirjodiatmodjo has written a sociological study entitled Die Entwicklung der Blockfreiheitsgedanken in Suedostasien Geschichte und Deutung der Neutraliteetsgedanken bei den Kolombolaendern, a Dr. dissertation for the University of Hamburg. 0. Soetomo Roesnadi has written a political science study entitled Indonesia-Philippine Relations 1961-1965, as a Ph.D. dissertation for Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. A study on the influence of the Pampangan and Bikol languages on Tagalog in the Philippines, based on field-work data, is being completed by E.K.M. Masinambow, a linguist at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (LEKNAS). Anrini Sofion (University of Indonesia) has done fieldwork in southern Thailand for a comparative study of the expenditure for religious activities among Buddhists and Muslims at the village level. Soewadji Sjafei (University of Indonesia) is engaged in research on the relationships between the ancient Cambodian Kingdom and Indonesia. There are, to be sure, quite a number of articles published in popular periodicals and newspapers but these are not based on sustained research activities. It should be noted that most of the results of research activities on Southeast Asia by Indonesian scholars are little known, even by colleagues in the same disciplines. In addition to some research activities undertaken at some of the universities and IKIPs, Southeast Asia also falls within the scope of

research interest of the Lembaga Research Kebudayaan Nasional (LRKN. or National Institute of Cultural Research) and the Lembaga Ekonomi dan Kemasyarakatan Nasional (LEKNAS, or National Institute of Economic and Social Research) - both being research institutes of the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI); the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private politically-oriented organization; and the Lembaga Urusan Internasional (Institute of International Affairs), a private semi-academic organization. Library Resources

In Indonesia, the library holdings with respect to Southeast Asia constitute a sad state of affairs. The rather rare Southeast Asia library collections are still very small and consist mainly of publications written by non-Southeast Asian authors. With the exception of some books written by Malay and Singaporean authors, the existing collections practically do not contain any book by Southeast Asian scholars. The same regrettable observation applies also to periodicals published within the region itself. No library, not even the libraries of the leading universities or social science research institutes, subscribes to the Journal of Siam Society; nor does any subscribe to the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. The many interesting Philippine scholarly journals in the social sciences and humanities are practically unknown among the Indonesian academic community. In the field of linguistics, for example, the library of the Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa Nasional (National Center for Language Development) does acquire such Malaysian journals as Dewan Bahasa, Dewan Sastra, Nusantara and Tenggara as one of the by-products of close cooperation between Malaysian and Indonesian language experts in developing standardization in spelling and terminology, but the library has no journals from Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, or any other Southeast Asian country. On the other hand, the Dutch journal Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde (Contributions to Linguistics, Geography, and Anthropology) and its much younger French sister, Archipel, are relatively well distributed. The American Journal of Asian Studies and Asian Survey are also unobtrusively accessible in a diversity of locations. Newspapers published in the Southeast Asian region outside Indonesia are nonexistent in the university libraries, although one or two universities do get the New York Times, the Paris edition of the Herald Tribune, the Dutch NRC, the Times of India, Japan Times, Le Monde, and even Pravda fairly regularly. A few individuals, it should be emphasized, do possess good private collections of publications from and about Southeast Asia, or any particular Southeast Asian country they happen to be especially interested in.

9h

With this kind of resources it is not quite easy to start a serious Southeast Asian Studies programme in any of the Indonesian universities. Indonesian publications on Southeast Asia or its constituent countries, apart from political statements and reports, are still quite meagre. Articles on Southeast Asian topics rarely appear in such leading and more scholarly oriented periodicals as Masyarakat Indonesia (Indonesian Society), Indonesian Review, Majalah Ilmu-Ilmu Sastra Indonesia (Indonesian Journal for Cultural Studies), Indonesian Quarterly, Ekonomi dan Kewangan (Economics and Finance), and Berita Antropologi (Anthropological Bulletin). There is, for example, an article by A.B. Lapian, "The sealords of Berau and Mindanao: two responses to the colonial challenge", in Masyarakat Indonesia, I (1974), pp. 143-54; and a translation of one of D. Lombard's articles, "Sumbangan kepada sejarah kota-kota di Asia Tenggara" [A contribution to the history of Southeast Asian cities], in Masyarakat Indonesia, III (June 1976), pp. 51-70. And there is an article by Anrini Sofion entitled ''Agama Buda di Muangthai'' [Buddhist religion in Thailand], inBeritaAntropologi, VII, No. 20(March 1975), pp. 8-30. The political scientist, Alfian, has written a comprehensive monograph on political behaviour in Southeast Asia, Tingkah Laku Politik di Asia Tenggara: Burma, Pilipina, Malaysia, Singapura, Muangthai, Vietnam, Laos, Khmer, Indonesia, (Jakarta: LEKNAS, 1973), 171 pp. The anthropologist Koentjaraningrat has written a text book, more for foreign consumption than for Indonesian students, entitled Introduction to the Peoples and Cultures of Indonesia and Malaysia, (Menlo Park, Cal.: Cummings Pub. Co., 1975), 193 pp.; the same anthropologist has also edited a special issue of Berita Antropologi on some ethnic cultures in Southeast Asia (the Shan, Burmese, Karen, Thai, Khmer, Kham, Muong), issued as Berita Antropologi, VIII, No. 28 (October 1976). The historian Taufik Abdullah has written a monograph on Islam in Southeast Asia, Islam di Asia Tenggara, (Jakarta: Lembaga Research Kebudayaan Nasional, LIP!, 1976), 62 pp.; while earlier, a colleague, the historian A.B. Lapian, has written a monograph on colonialism in Southeast Asia, Kolonialisme di Asia Tenggara, (Jakarta: Lembaga Research Kebudayaan, LIPI, 1975), 39 pp. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has, among others, published Regionalism in Southeast Asia, (1974), 174 pp., a collection of papers submitted to the First Conference of ASEAN Students of Regional Affairs, held in Jakarta, October 22-25, 1974; and J. Panglaykim, Indonesia's Economic and Business Relations with ASEAN and Japan, (1977), 322 pp. Its monthly, Analisa, has special issues devoted to Southeast Asia, such as Vol. II, No. 2 (1973) on peace in Indo-China - a challenge to Southeast Asia; Vol. II, No. 4 (1973) on Singapore in Southeast Asia; Vol. II, No.6 (1973) on Burma; Vol. II, No. 7 (1973) on Japan and Southeast Asi:t; Vol. IV, No. 3 (1975) on energy and the Straits of Malacca; Vol. V, Nos. 2 and 3 (1976) and Vol. VI, No. 2

97

(1977) on ASEAN, its prospects and problems. Its quarterly, Indonesian Quarterly, has a number of articles on ASEAN, written by such authors as Juwono Sudarsono, J. Panglaykim, Sajidiman Surjohadiprodjo, J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Soerjono Soekanto, 0. Sutomo Roesnadi, M. Hadi Soesastro, B.P. Lukman, Ali Moertopo, and Soemitro Djojohadikoesoemo. Conclusion It should be clear by now that much still needs to be done to establish a Southeast Asian Studies programme in Indonesia. Whatever the difficulties in planning and instituting such a pro~amme, it should also be clear that it is imperative to develop Southeast Asia specialists to build up the type of academic knowledge which should serve as a strong basis for the much needed understanding of and solidarity with the great diversity of peoples of the neighbouring countries in the region.

9

Southeast Asian Studies in Malaysia Tunku Shamsul Bahrin

It might appear an irony of history that universities in Southeast Asia neither led nor followed the rapid development of Southeast Asian Studies programmes which took place in institutions of higher learning outside the region. These latter institutions, on their own momentum, rapidly expanded and extended Southeast Asian Studies after World War II. In contrast, only a handful of indigenous universities either taught or did research in Southeast Asian Studies on any substantial scale even as recently as the early 1970s. Among these institutions were the Asian Center of the University of Philippines, Institute of Asian Studies (Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University), Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore), Regional Research Institute (University of Indonesia), Institute of Southeast Asia (Nanyang University), Faculty of Economics (Thammasat University), Faculty of Arts and Social Science (University of Singapore), Southeast Asian Studies Programme (Silliman University) and Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (University of Malaya).

Background to Southeast Asian Studies Teaching and Research Programme: University of Malaya

The institutionalization of Southeast Asian Studies through the Programme of Southeast Asian Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences in the University of Malaya stands as a hallmark in the teaching and researching of the area, not only regionally but also locally. Prior to this time Southeast Asian Studies in Malaysia was dispersed and little effort was made to centralize its teaching and to benefit from the crossing of academic frontiers such as between history and literature and from the pooling of resources such as the bringing together of specialist knowledge and documentary materials on the area. The efficient and effective utilization of existing resources within the university was also a manifestation of the growing sense of regionalism in the country such as is reflected, for example, in the current revised history syllabus for schools. Although Southeast Asian Studies as a degree programme was started

l)l)

al the University of Malaya only in 1976, there had been discussions about its establishment as early as in 1961. It was even envisaged that the Faculty of Arts might be replaced by a School of Southeast Asian Studies. Despite the fact that nothing came out of the School concept, or the ensuing discussion, it is probably worthwhile, at least for the record, to mention the main reasons for the proposal to organize the studies programme in a school. The proposal arose out of a sense of dissatisfaction with the very structure of the Faculty itself where the component departments, largely autonomo,;s on syllabus, were found to offer independent courses of study within the general fields of Southeast Asian history, culture, language, geographj, economics, etc. But there were also a few other departments which used the interdisciplinary approach for the teaching of Malay Studies. Chinese Studies, Indian Studies and Islamic Studies. The structure of the Faculty at that time required students to take courses within each individual department. It was felt vital to relax this rigidity and :nake it advantageous to both students and staff to attain some elasticity in the courses offered by the various departments. There was a growing need to provide facilities for advanced study .and research of an interdisciplinary nature in the fields of Southeast Asian history, culture, language, economics and geography. It was felt neces:;ary as well to foster cooperative research projects among local staff and encourage foreign scholars interested in Southeast Asia to participate in such projects. It was, however, not the intention to suggest that undergraduate teaching in the proposed School of Southeast Asian Studies would concern itself solely with Malaysia and Southeast Asia though traditional foundations for many of the liberal disciplines must continue to be laid; but it was felt possible to coordinate the various courses concerned with Southeast Asia, and make them available to students on a wider basis than was possible in the Faculty at that time. The advantages outlined in the proposed establishment of the School of Southeast Asian Studies were: (i) By its very name, a School of Southeast Asian Studies implied a point of orientation which would guide undergraduate studies. Conceptually, it was based on the definition of the "purpose of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London". (ii) The proposed School would provide greater elasticity in the arrangement of departments in the Faculty. At that time, as now, departments were rigidly compartmentalized, and liaison or cooperation between departments depended on direct personal relationships between individual Heads. The School idea would enable greater flexibility in arranging departments about a particular discipline. For example, two departments could contain the same lecturer or professor who thus would act in a dual capacity by engaging in teaching and research within the two departments. In this way, a field of study could develop with a limited base of lecturing staff but heavily supplemented by staff from other

100

departments. Thus, the autonomy of each department would be preserved whil.st compartmentalization would be eliminated through the overlap of staff teaching and researching in more than one department. On such a basis, common courses could be offered, and the School (Faculty) thoroughly integrated. (iii) The third reason, perhaps less well formulated, assumed that the proposed School, located in Southeast Asia (at that time there was no other such School in the region), would quickly become an international centre for Southeast Asian Studies. It would not only attract outside scholars interested in the field but, by its organization and ability, help to develop research projects and attract finance in large amounts. It was felt that a School of Southeast Asian Studies in the University of Malaya would do more to achieve international recognition for the university than almost anything else that could be envisaged. The fact that nothing came out of the proposal should not perhaps be taken as an indication of its lack of worth but rather as a reflection of the conservative attitude towards change. Another attempt to introduce an integrated area-studies programme was made in 1969. It was felt that the diverse Faculty expertise could be reorganized in a way that students could take courses with the area as the central theme. One of the areas that was considered a priority was Southeast Asia. Other field-study areas suggested were South Asia, Middle East, East Asia, etc. Despite the popularity of area-studies at that time and also their usefulness, the well-entrenched faculty members, thinking more about their indiv~dual departmental interests, blocked the implementation of these proposals. It is of interest to note that many of these elements have left the university to take up appointments in area-based programmes elsewhere. It was not until mid-1975 that the F acuity again considered the need for and possibility of starting an interdisciplinary Southeast Asian Area Studies programme. A number of factors (some of which were practically the same as those considered previously) prompted the Faculty seriously to reconsider the introduction of this programme. But there were also new lines of thinking: (i) It was observed that the students did not have an adequate knowledge and understanding of the area; (ii) It was correctly felt that given the academic expertise and existing courses on Southeast Asia, the creation of a Southeast Asian Studies Programme would stimulate a reorientation of research and perhaps new work as well in the field. While the number of courses dealing explicitly with more than one Southeast Asian country in any discipline was small, very many courses dealt with at least one Southeast Asian country. There existed therefore a large reservoir of resources that could be tapped but long hidden behind the anonymity of discipline-oriented courses such as geography, regional economic development, drama, etc. Most of these could become more broadly oriented towards Southeast Asia.

101

(iii) Two other developments prompted the Faculty to organize a Southeast Asian Studies programme. The first was the decline of interest in the region especially after the American withdrawal from Vietnam. It was noted that money available for Southeast Asian research in the United States and Europe had been considerably reduced; as a result a number of institutions in the United States that had Southeast Asian Studies programmes reduced their course offerings and research activities. The second development is more internal to the region. The need to promote teaching about each other's country has been repeatedly advocated in the past; in 1975 at its First Summit Meeting, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) specifically included "the promotion of Southeast Asian Studies" as one of the association's objectives (Declaration of ASEAN Concord, D.3.) These two developments clearly indicated the need for the promotion of Southeast Asian Studies in the region. With these reasons in mind and recognizing the time-consuming process of starting a new and formal institution such as a Department, the Faculty proposed to launch a programme in Southeast Asian Studies without any initial request for either funds or staff. This was unanimously accepted and approved by the university authorities without much debate. In view of the previous opposition by established departments to Southeast Asian Studies, one of the first tasks in introducing the new programme was to get the cooperation and agreement of all Heads concerned. Fortunately, the mood had changed and consensus was reached without much difficulty. There was also sufficient commitment by most of the departments to allow their staff members to offer courses in the programme. By then the interdisciplinary approach adopted by the departments of Malay Studies, Chinese Studies, Indian Studies and Islamic Studies had begun to show its merit, and it helped to influence the interdisciplinary character proposed for a programme in Southeast Asian Studies. However, not all the above departments were involved in the teaching and researching of Southeast Asian Studies with equal emphasis. In the 1969/70 session, the Chinese Studies Department offered a total of about forty-four courses but not one course pertained to the region. The Malay Studies Department, on the other hand, for the same session offered an equal number of courses with thirty-seven of them pertaining to the region. It should not be forgotten, however, that in the teaching of Southeast Asian countries there was, first, a marked tendency in favour of the home country, and second, a strong bias towards Island Southeast Asia and very little emphasis on Mainland Southeast Asia. Thus in the 1972/73 session the Malay Studies Department had forty-eight courses of which thirty-seven involved Malaysia and abQut five dealt with other parts of the region. The only department in that year which offered more courses on Southeast Asia than the home country was the History Department. It had forty-two courses of which fourteen were on Southeast Asia and only seven on Malaysia. It must be pointed out that some of the

102

discipline-oriented courses in Geography, Economics, Anthropology I Sociology are heavily laced with comparative references to and examples from Southeast Asia. As in the case of teaching, in research publications too, there was a disproportionate emphasis on the host country and only marginal attention paid to the other countries of the region. In addition, there ~as a direct correlation between the departments' teaching interests within Southeast Asian Studies and their research orientation. For example, the Malay Studies Department in the 1967/68 session had a total of thirty-five publications of which thirty were related to Southeast Asian Studies. The Chinese Studies Department, on the other hand, published about thirty articles and books but had nothing that touched on Southeast Asia. The publications of the other departments too followed their teaching preferences. The only surprise in this pattern was the Geology Department which had nothing to contribute to the teaching of Southeast Asian Studies but was prolific in its research publications on the area. The bias towards teaching the home country was carried over into postgraduate work at the university. In the period between 1961 to 1976 there was a total of 245 successful master's and doctoral candidates in the faculties of Arts, Economics and Administration, Education, and Law. Of these, 188 candidates worked on Malaysia, 6 on parts of Southeast Asia and 51 on other topics. Even staff members on field work research were reluctant to visit neighbouring countries. In the last decade only a handful of members had toured countries in the region. Organization and Nature of the Programme of Southeast Asian Studies: University of Malaya The Programme of Southeast Asian Studies is being run by a Committee with representatives from each department in the Faculty. There are also courses offered to the Programme by three other faculties of the university, namely, Economics and Administration, Science, and Law. The Committee is headed by the Dean and all administrative matters are being dealt with by the Dean's office. Southeast Asian Studies is offered as a major from the second year of an undergraduate's three-year degree course for either the Honours or General degree awards (depending upon performance in the last two years of study). It is assumed that the three subjects a student offers in the first year would provide him with some background knowledge needed to pursue Southeast Asian Studies as his major subject in the next two years. When the programme was initially offered in 1976, the first batch of second year students offering to major in the Southeast Asian Programme was required, like all other students, to take a total of eight units from a list of courses, five of which must be courses approved by the Committee. The remaining three are taken from other approved Southeast Asian Studies Programme courses or from the list of Faculty options.

!OJ The basic idea of the Programme is to provide students with an indepth understanding of Southeast Asia through the interdisciplinary approach. In essence, there are two fundamental elements in the orientation of the courses: area and discipline. To get a balanced exposure to both, students are required to select two courses dealing with one or more countries in the region and three courses dealing with disciplines but drawing their examples and case studies from the region. The 'disciplines' are divided into three streams: (i) Cultural stream - including languages, literature, art, folklore and beliefs, etc. (ii) Social stream - including social structures, customs, social change, etc. (iii) Developmental stream - including courses in modernization, urbanization, economic development, politics, etc. A student is required to specialize in a stream of his choice (cultural, social or developmental) and to remain in it during the third year. He can, in addition, offer to write a Graduation Exercise. All majoring students in the second year are required to take a common core course which is currently designed to examine the geographical, historical and cultural background of Southeast Asia up to 1945. The lectures highlight the cultural and physical geography of the region: Southeast Asian ethnography; the spread of Indian culture in Southeast Asia emphasizing Hinduism and Buddhism in the region; the spread of Islam, its history and impact on Southeast Asia; and the history and politics of Southeast Asia up to the Second World War. In addition to the above course, students must take at least another four courses all of which must come from any one of the three above-mentioned streams. Furthermore, the courses in each stream are grouped under three sections and each student is required to take at least one course from each section. These sections deal with (a) methodology or introduction specific to each stream, (b) courses of a comparative nature dealing with two or more states or community, and (c) courses dealing with one country or community in Southeast Asia. These regulations underwent some changes recently when Faculty required students to take ten units instead of eight. As a consequence, some modifications had to be introduced. In view of the fact that the whole structure of the Programme is essentially multidisciplinary, students are now required to take all their courses from the Programme, except in the cases of students who had language requirements to fulfil. In addition to the core course required for all students, there is also a compulsory course that is required to be taken for each particular stream. Students have to choose three additional courses, one each from the groups described earlier. Other courses can be selected from any group of the stream or the remaining two streams. For the session 1977/78, in addition to the graduation exercise, there

104

are fifty-two courses offered to the second year and forty-eight courses for the third year. Whereas a large number of these courses are directly taken from the Faculty optional list, there are also courses that have been specifically introduced to the Programme and that carry the Programme's code number. There are seven such courses offered to second year students and seven courses during the third year of study including a Graduation Exercise. The Programme has gained in popularity amongst the Faculty students. During its first year of introduction in 1976/77, the number of places available was restricted, for various reasons, to fifty. The number of students who applied to major was three times that number. Selection was based on their performance in the first year. With more experience and participation from the Faculty staff, and as a result of popular demand, the intake into the Programme during 1977/78 was increased to one hundred, making it the third largest majoring course in the Faculty after the traditional leaders- History and Malay Studies. Although still in its infancy, there are a number of observations that can be made for the improvement of the existing Programme; these can also be used as guidelines for the formulation of other such programmes: (i) From the curriculum point of view, a careful balance must be achieved between exposing the student to specific disciplines and providing him with a broad knowledge and understanding of the region, which is essential in an interdisciplinary area studies programme. The disciplinary base area component is relevant to enable the students to compete for specific jobs. (ii) Although a number of existing Faculty courses deal with the region, many of them are given to fit in with and to suit existing departmental requirements. If these have to be adopted by the Programme, some modifications may be necessary in order to make them meaningful within the context of the Southeast Asian Studies Programme. Close cooperation between the Programme and existing departments is essential. (iii) Although a number of advantages can be cited for the programme to be directly placed under the Dean, its long-term development may require it to have its own institutional base. One of the advantages is that the Dean, by virtue of his position in the Faculty, can secure more cooperation from staff and heads of departments. But then the future of the Programme could be so personalized that it may even be prejudiced depending upon the interest of the Dean. In this respect then, an institution co~ld be devised whereby a person, other than the Dean, would be responsible for coordinating the Programme and managing its day-today details with his own teaching and supporting staff, while broad policy matters would be deliberated upon by a Committee headed by the Dean and consisting of representatives from all departments concerned. Considering the above long-term needs, the University of Malaya Senate has set up a Board of Studies to review the structure and courses in

105

the Faculty, including the future of the Southeast Asian Studies Programme. Some of the areas that require immediate attention are: (i) the expansion of the content of the courses; (ii) the offering of Southeast Asian Studies as one of the subjects in the first year; (iii) planning for the long-term development of a Department of Southeast Asian Studies in terms of administrative and staff requirements. It is essential that the Programme has a number of core staff who are directly involved with the Programme's students and also to coordinate teaching requirements in specific fields. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Universiti Sains Malaysia

The establishment of Universiti Sains Malaysia in 1969 and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in 1970 in a way helped to expand Southeast Asian Studies in the country and these institutions continued the dispersed nature of these studies. These two universities, however, did not match the range and number of courses offered by the older university. In Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysi~. courses related to Southeast Asia were conducted in several faculties which included Social Science and Humanities, Islamic Studies and the Institute of Malay Language, Literature and Culture. However, the more serious effort in teaching the subject was made in the Institute of Malay Language, Literature and Culture. In the 1975/76 session, for example, this faculty offered a total of about eighty-eight subjects for its four-year honours course, the breakdown being thirty on Malaysia, twenty on Southeast Asian countries and thirty-eight on others. The Social Science and Humanities Faculty, in the previous academic session, on the other hand, had a total of about eighty-one courses of which eighteen could be grouped as Malaysian in content, fifteen on parts of Southeast Asia and forty-eight others. Similar features too can be observed in the Universiti Sains Malaysia. Southeast Asian Studies was taught in both the School of Humanities and in the School of Comparative Social Sciences. However, the latter had a slight edge in terms of teaching commitment to it. In the 1977/78 academic session, the School of Comparative Social Sciences offered 38 courses on the region as opposed to the School of Humanities' figure of 33. None the less, it must not be forgotten that in view of the 181 courses offered by the School of Comparative Social Sciences it would appear that Southeast Asian Studies held a low profile. Southeast Asian Studies Resources at the University of Malaya Library

The University of Malaya Library has a rich and varied collection of resource materials on Southeast Asia, but it has not been organized on an interdisciplinary system and housed separately as a Southeast Asian Studies collection, such as its Malaysiana collection. In its acquisitions

JOn

programme, the library has been influenced by the fact that it caters largely for undergraduate education, and thus by the teaching demands of the various faculties and their departments. The current collection, which shows encouraging growth, includes books, newspapers, periodicals, dissertations and theses, manuscripts and official record materials. The monographic collection on Southeast Asian countries is quite complete in its coverage of contemporary standard works but is weak in retrospective publications. In the latter category, it tends to follow the teaching rather than the research needs of the university. There is a need to widen the holdings of publications in the national languages of Southeast Asia. The library maintains a collection of local newspapers in English and some national languages of the region. Its collection of Malay newspapers of the prewar years is by far the largest single collection of its kind. There needs to be a more serious attempt to expand the library's newspaper collection to include other countries in the region. The library subscribes to Indonesia's Kompas and Sinar Harapan, Thailand's Bangkok Post and Philippines' Manila Times. There exists no subscription to current newspapers in the national languages of other Southeast Asian countries. The library subscribes to more than 4,000 titles of periodicals. Included in these titles are all the major periodicals devoted to Southeast Asian Studies. Retrospective sets of these periodicals are also comprehensive. There exists an established theses exchange link between the University of Malaya and the University of Singapore which facilitates the complete acquisition of all such materials submitted to these two institutions. Similar links have yet to be established with other universities. Generally copies of theses submitted to the Commonwealth universities have been obtained on microfilm but this is done on an ad hoc basis whenever permission is granted. More recently efforts have been made to complete the library's holdings of doctoral dissertations submitted to American universities which subscribe to the microfilm programme. The exchange and acquisition of research materials submitted in Southeast Asian or European universities need to be strengthened. Since 1959 the library has managed to acquire a fairly large collection of manuscripts in their original form or in microform. Most of these manuscripts are in Bahasa Melayu. This collection has been largely drawn from those that existed in various institutions in England, the Netherlands and other European countries. There is a need to investigate similar possibilities in other institutions in the region. As in the case of most Southeast Asian countries, much of the primary sources of research materials pertaining to Malaysia are to be found in the administrative records of the former colonial rulers. The largest collection of these records is to be found in the Public Record Office and in the India Office Library in London. From early times the University of Malaya Library has worked towards obtaining the relevant records on microfilm.

10

Southeast Asian Studies in the Philippines Patrocinio D. Isleta & Milagros R. Espinas

The Southeast Asian Studies programme of the Philippines is the result of an effort by the country's past and present leadership to reorientate the heavily Westernized educational curricula towards the development of an Asian identity among Filipinos. Efforts in this direction were initiated by President Ramon Magsaysay who established the Institute of Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines in 1954. He meant the Institute to "make our highest institution of learning the common ground in which to bring together scholars and students in Asia to develop among themselves a spirit of stronger kinship, mutual helpfulness and solidarity and render fit to serve as a rallying point in the joint endeavor of all Asians to preserve and advance their common cultural heritage". A team of professors was sent abroad to observe academic programmes on Asia in v