¹ See, e.g., Hoadley, Mason C., “Javanese Procedural Law: A History of the Ceribon-Priangan Jakso College, 1706-1735”(Ph. D. diss., Cornell University, 1975)Google Scholar; a similar process can be seen inattemptsat legal decolonization, e.g., Lev, Daniel S., “Judicial Unification in Post-Colonial Indonesia”, Indonesia 16 (1973): 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² On the pokrol bambu, see Lev, Daniel S., “Judicial Institutions and Legal Culture in Indonesia”, in Culture and Politics in Indonesia, ed. Holt, C. (Ithaca, N.Y., 1972), pp. 293–96Google Scholar.

³ On contemporary Malay law, see Hooker, M. B., Adat Laws in Modern Malaya: Land Tenure, Traditional Government and Religion (Kuala Lumpur, 1972)Google Scholar; unfortunately, the book is strongly concentrated on one state, Negri Sembilan.

See also Mackeen, Abdul Majeed Mohamed, Contemporary Islamic Legal Organization in Malaya, Yale University Southeast Asia Studies Monograph Series no. 13 (New Haven, Conn., 1969)Google Scholar. For a formal case-oriented background, with attention to the other communities, see Ibrahim, Ahmad bin Mohd., “Towards a History of Law in Malaysia and Singapore” (Mimeo., Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, undated), and alsoGoogle ScholarHooker, M. B. (ed. and comp.), A Source Book Of Adat, Chinese Lawandthe History of Common Law in the Malayan Peninsula, Malayan Law Review Monograph no. 1 (Singapore, 1967)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professors Abdul Majeed Mohamed Mackeen and Ahmad b. Ibrahim for discussing law in Malaysia with me in Kuala Lumpur, in 1974. Plural legal societies are not, of course, found only in Malaysia. See Smith, M. G., “The Sociological Framework of Law” in African Law: Adaptation and Development, ed. Kuper, Hilda and Kuper, Leo (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), pp. 24–48;Google ScholarAnderson, J. N. D. (ed.), Family Law in Asia and Africa (London, 1970)Google Scholar; Stirling, Paul, “Comment on the Legal Situation in Indonesia”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 8 (1965/1966): 50–55;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRudolph, L. and Rudolph, S. H., Modemityand Tradition: Political Development in India (Chicago and London, 1967), Pt. II:Google Scholar “Legal Cultures and Social Change”; Hamnett, Ian (ed.). Social Anthropology and Law, A.S.A. Monograph 14 (London, New York, and San Francisco, 1977)Google Scholar.

⁴ The phrase “negotiated order” comes from Tanner, Nancy, “Disputing and Dispute Settlement Among the Minangkabau of Indonesia”, Indonesia 8 (1969); 21–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the quotation is from Derrett, J. Duncan M., “The Administration of Hindu Law by the British”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 4 (1961/1962): 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Malay adat is usually divided into two types: adat perpatih, the articulate Minangkabau-derived custom of Negri Sembilan and parts of Malacca, and the less well-studied adat temenggong, a patrilineal system found elsewhere. Trengganu is an adat temenggong area, but since little is known of the practice of this adat (descriptions are usually based on legal digests intended for elite use), this categorization is not particularly helpful. See Hooker, , Adat Laws in Modern Malaya, pp. 28–30Google Scholar, on adat temenggong, and pp. 71-90 on classic legal digests. See also Ibrahim, Ahmad b. Mohd., op. cit., pp. 9–11Google Scholar; he observes (of the adat temenggong): “Evolved for the mixed population of the ports it was introduced largely from India along with commerce by traders and adventurers, at first Hindu, later Muslim.” He describes the adat temenggong as a “composite patriarchal law” known through the legal digests. This gives the impression that apart from the linking of this adat to a patrilineal system, we know very little about the customary law of most Malay states, including the linkage between village dispute settlement and the digests.

⁵ See, e.g., Coulson, N. J., A History of Islamic Law (Edinburgh, 1964). The quotation is from p. 5. See alsoGoogle ScholarIbrahim, Ahmad, Islamic Law in Malaya (Singapore, 1975)Google Scholar, for general background and post-war developments.

⁶ See Said, E. W., Orientalism (New York, 1978), orGoogle ScholarAsad, Talal, “Two European Images of Non-European Rule”, in Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, ed. Asad, T. (London, 1975), pp. 103–18Google Scholar.

⁷ An outline background is given in Mackeen, , op. cit.; see alsoGoogle ScholarRoff, W. R., The Origins of Malay Nationalism (New Haven and London, 1967), pp. 7–9Google Scholar, 67-69. Taib, Mamet Adam b., “Struktur dan Organisasi Pentadbiran Hal Ehwal Ugama Islam Trengganu” (Academic Exercise, Universiti Malaya, Jabatan Sejarah, 1970)Google Scholar.

⁸ Hooker, M. B., “The Trengganu Inscription in Malayan Legal History“, Jmbras 49, no. 2 (1976): 127–31Google Scholar. The legal inscription combines a text in Arabic script with Sanskrit and Arabic terms, but gives a primarily Malayo-Indonesian set of rules and punishments. As Hooker observes, the Islamic elements seem more important as religiously potent legitimation than as evidence of a wholehearted commitment to the hukum shara'.

⁹ Interviews with Datuk Purba di Raja, retired Chief Kathi of Trengganu in Kuala Trengganu, Apr./May 1974. On Riau see Barbara Watson Andaya and Virginia Matheson, “Islamic Thought and Malay Tradition: The Writings of Raja Ali Haji of Riau (c. 1809-70)” (Paper presented at the conference on “Southeast Asian Perceptions of the Past”, Australian National University, Canberra, 1976)Google Scholar. Baginda Omar's chief minister was the Syed Ungku Syed Zain of the famous al-Idrus lineage; Anom, Ungku Pengiran, “A Conqueror's Correspondence a Century Ago”, Malaya in History 4, no. 2 (1963): 9–19Google Scholar. On the al-Idrus and the Duyung mufti family in general, see Sutherland, Heather, “The Taming of the Trengganu Elite”, in Southeast Asian Transitions: Approaches through Social History, ed. McVey, R. T. (New Haven, Conn., 1978)Google Scholar; Clifford, Hugh, “Expedition to Trengganu and Kelantan” (dated 1895), \Jmbras 34, no. 1 (1961); 59–61, 91-92Google Scholar, on Baginda Omar. See also the recent Ph.D. thesis by Robert, Leslie (Shaharil Tatib), “Malay Ruling Class and British Empire: The Case of Trengganu, 1881-1941” (Ph.D. diss., Monash University, 1977)Google Scholar; also his article as Robert, Shaharil Talib, “The Trengganu Ruling Class in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Jmbras50, no. 2 (1977): 25–47Google Scholar. The 19th century was a period of intensifying Islamic activity in Muslim Southeast Asia; on Indonesia, see Kartodirdjo, Sartono, The Peasants Revolt of Banten in 1888 (The Hague, 1966), ch. 5Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Clifford, , op. cit., p. 99, attributed Trengganu^ piety to Baginda Omar's efforts, and particularly to the influence of the Syeds he brought with him from Riau. Clifford's main opponent during his enquiries in Trengganu about rebels who had fled there from Pahang was the Ungku Syed To Ku Paloh, leader ofthe al-Idrus Family, see pp. 39, 45-47Google Scholar.

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 60-61.

¹² Ibid., pp. 80-83; the quotation is from p. 82; Robert, , “Malay Ruling Class”, pp. 110–11Google Scholar.

¹³ On the role of law in defining political structure and authority in another Southeast Asian Muslim society, see Kiefer, Thomas M., The Tausug: Violence and Law in a Philippine Moslem Society (New York, 1972)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Andaya, Barbara W., “An Examination of the Sources Concerning the Reign of Sultan Mansur Shah of Trengganu, 1741-1785”, Jmbras 49, no. 2 (1976); 99–103Google Scholar; and on 19th-century Trengganu, Sheppard, M. C., “A Short History of Trengganu”, Jmbras 21, no. 3 (1949); 1–54;Google ScholarSutherland, , op. citGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ See, e.g., Salleh, Mohamed b. Nik Mohd., “Kelantan in Transition, 1891-1910”, in Kelantan: Religion, Society and Politics in a Malay State, ed. Roff, William R. (Kuala Lumpur, 1974), pp. 22–61:Google ScholarAhmat, Sharom, “The Political Structure of the State of Kedah, 1879-1905”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 1, no. 2 (1970): 113–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Robert's “Malay Ruling Class” is primarily concerned with the active economic involvement of the Trengganu elite and gives a good account of theirrearrangementof state organization to maximize their wealth, most successfully in the period before and just after the arrival of the first British Agent.

¹⁶ According to one estimate the town of Kuala Trengganu had a population of 25,000, c. 1912, making it by far the biggest town in the Unfederated Malay States, its nearest rival being Johore Bahru with 20,000, Wright, A. and Reid, T. H., The Malay Peninsula (London and Leipzig, 1912), quoted inGoogle ScholarAllen, J. de Vere, “The Ancient Regime in Trengganu, 1909-1919” Jmbras 41, no. 1 (1968): 2–3Google Scholar. An estimate of 10,000 was given in a British official's description of his visit to Trengganu in 1896, CO 273/217/21195; he also gave details on the town. See also the account from 1893 in CO273/188/14298; I am indebted to Mr. Christopher Gray for these two references. Skeat, W. W. and Laidlaw, F. F., in their “Reminiscences of the Cambridge University Expedition to the North Eastern Malay States, 1899-1900”, Jmbras 26, no. 4 (1953): 123–24Google Scholar, commented that “Trengganu, in fact, showed more European influence than the other Malay states” (presumably Kelantan and Kedah). See Clifford, , op. cit., pp. 100–101Google Scholar, on his intellectual encounters.

¹⁷ Emerson, R., Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule (originally published 1937)(Kuala Lumpur, 1964), pp. 220–29Google Scholar. An indication that the Siamese may sometimes have acted as an arbiter is given in an entry in the Journal of the British Agent of Trengganu for 13 May 1914: “It is pointed out to me that during the Siamese regime here that ifany party in a suit was dissatisfied and appealed to Siam that the government used to send down a special magistrate to decide the case”, CO273/411 Desp. 324, p. 167. Since the Agent was building a case for greater legal intervention by Britain, the weight of this observation is doubtful.

¹⁸ Sutherland, , op. citGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Conlay's, Journal, 2 Oct. 1909Google Scholar, CO273/351 Desp. 345, p. 391; letter from the Agent W.D. Scott to the High Commissioner's Sec, CO717/388 Desp. 606, p. 310.

²⁰ Interview with retired Chief Kathi of Trengganu, Datuk Purba di Raja, Trengganu, 1974.

²¹ Annual Report of the British Agent, Trengganu, for the Year 1918 (Kuala Lumpur, 1919), p. 10Google Scholar; Report on the State of Trengganufor theyear 1931 (part) (Singapore, 1932), p. 3Google Scholar. Hereafter Annual Reports will be cited as A.R.T. followed by the year; the reports were printed in Kuala Lumpur until 1923 and in Singapore thereafter.

²² Clifford, , op. cit., pp. 70–71Google Scholar, 86-87. The Agent's Journal, 2 Oct. 1909Google Scholar, CO273/351 Desp. 345, p. 388, mentions the police regulation in the undang-undang.

²³ Journal, 5 Aug. 1909Google Scholar, CO273/351 Desp. 303, p. 195.

²⁴ Ibid.; Robert, , “Malay Ruling Class”, pp. 387–90Google Scholar.

²⁵ Journal, Aug. 1911Google Scholar, CO273/375 Desp. 435, p. 227; A.R.T. 1915, p. 29; A.R.T. 1917.

²⁶ A.R.T., 1920; A.R.T., 1921, p. 8.

²⁷ Conlay's Journal, 2 Oct. 1909, CO273/351 Desp. 345, p. 388.

²⁸ Roff, , The Origins of Malay Nationalism, pp. 72–74;Google ScholarIbrahim, Ahmad Mohd., op. cit.Google Scholar; EmilySadka, , The Protected Malay States. 1874-1895 (Kuala Lumpur, 1968), pp. 249–71Google Scholar. British reorganization of Islamic Law in Africa was rather similar, see Anderson, J. N. D., “The Adaptation of Muslim Law in Sub-Sahara Africa”, in African Law, ed. Kuper, and Kuper, , pp. 156–64Google Scholar, and the sources cited therein. See also Ibrahim, Ahmed, “The Muslims in Malaysia and Singapore: The Law of Matrimonial Property”, in Family Law in Asia and Africa, ed. Anderson, , pp. 182–204Google Scholar.

²⁹ Emerson, , op. cit., p. 13; I am grateful to Christopher Gray for information on JohorGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Annual Report: Kedah, 1905-1906, see also the section “Law and Justice: Sources of Malay Law”, in Report on the Administration of the State of Kedah for the Period September 1906-February 1908.

³¹ Roff, William R. “The Origins and Early Years of the Majlis Ugama”, in Kelantan, pp. 112–15, 121-24, 139Google Scholar.

³² Agent's Journal, 25 May 1916Google Scholar, CO273/445 Desp. 186, p. 417; 30 Mar. 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 117, p. 196; A.R.T. 1915.

³³ Agent's Journal, 23 Nov. 1914Google Scholar, CO273/413 Desp. 605, p. 179; 16 Jan. 1915, CO273/425 Desp. 100, p. 383; 10 Mar. 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 117, p. 196; 30 Aug. 1913, CO273/400 Desp. 467, p. 271; and a Report on “Affairs of Trengganu” by the High Commissioner (A. Young) dd. 8 Oct. 1914, inCO273/412,p. 257.

³⁴ Mackeen, , op. cit., pp. 50–51Google Scholar; The Minhaj was also mentioned in interviews in Trengganu. It remained a particularly useful sourcebook in later years because it was translated in English, Minhaj et Talibin. A Manual of Muhamedan Law according to the School of Shafii, by Mahiudin Abu Zakaria Ibn Sharif en Nawawi, translated into English from the French edition by Berg, L. W. C. van den by Howard, E. C., later district judge in Singapore (London and Calcutta, 1914).Google ScholarRobert, , op. cit., p. 454Google Scholar, notes the English use of the Minhaj to overcome Trengganu scruples.

³⁵ Trengganu State Secretary's Archive (SUK), Arkib Negara Kuala Lumpur, SUK 46/1338.

³⁶ The rape case is described in Agent's Journal, 9 Feb. 1915Google Scholar, CO273/425 Desp. 131, p. 522; the A.R.T. 1917 repeated complaints about the insufficient deterrent function of law in Trengganu; “the failure is partly due to the nature of the penalties inflicted (the severe penalties of the Hukum Sharak having been replaced — for persons of adequate means — by a system of fines) but more particularly to the Mohammedan law of proof.…” An account of procedure was given by the hakim Che Nik bin Hitam in his evidence before the 1918 Commission led by SirBucknill, John, Report of the Commission Appointed by His Excellency the High Commissioner to Enquire into Certain Matters Relating to the State of Trengganu (hereafter Bucknill Report) (Singapore, 1918), p. 58Google Scholar.

³⁷ A description of oath-taking is given in the Agent's Journal for 29 Mar. 1917Google Scholar, CO273/459 Desp. 110, p. 553: “the administration of a solemn oath is often a convenient and effective way of disposing of a contested suit. There is a special court official kept for the purpose who administers the oath on the Koran inside the mosque.” He adds: “In the case of Chinese it is considered that to allow an oath according to their own peculiar customs would be to tolerate or encourage superstition. They are, therefore, allowed to take an oath in the following way: they stand on the steps leading from the mosque courtyard into the street, the court officer holding up the Koran inside, and they repeat a formula to the effect that, if their statement is not true, may they be eaten upriver by a crocodile, eaten at sea by a shark etc, etc.”The Agent found this absurd, and obtained agreement from the Sultan for all communities to make oaths according to their own customs. Oaths could be “returned”, initiating an escalation of oaths between the two parties, see Journal, 27 Mar. 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 117, p. 196. Murderers sometimes — because of the weight of their crime — had to take the oath many times, e.g., 150, Journal, 1 Nov. 1917, CO273/461 Desp. 374, p. 475. An example of appeal to supernatural sanctions also occurred on 5 Nov. 1917, when some case property was stolen by court staff: “To detect the thief a charmed wafer was prepared (to be eaten by everyone from Hakim to peon) that would stick in the throa t of the guilty party. Before the ordeal th e Hakim's orderly confessed”; CO273/461 Desp. 374, p. 475.

³⁸ See note 36 above. Clifford, , op. cit., p. 82Google Scholar, notes the frequent commutation into fines. Imprisonment did occur, and goal conditions appalled English observers — from Clifford (pp. 85-6) to the Trengganu Bucknill Commission.

³⁹ Journal, 19 Feb. 1916Google Scholar, CO273/444 Desp. 57, p. 642. John Lisseter Humphreys (Agent 1915-19; Adviser 1919-25), had a profound knowledge of Trengganu and good relations with many of its leaders. It is possible that his personal appreciation of Islam was better than appears from his official reports, where the usual indifference and ipsensitivity prevails. This could reflect a formal abstinence from comment, but is none the less noteworthy. Twice during his unusually long period.as Agent and Adviser, Trengganu was galvanized by religious feeling. In June 1917, in passing, he commented “There has been considerable religious excitement during the past month, caused by a letter from Mecca (of which I have a copy) reporting that a voice from the Prophets tomb at Medina had announced the near approach of the Day of Judgement. Ungku Said at Paloh, and Tuan Embong in the Town, have been holding early morning services and well attended Koran classes for women. A number of ladies, who are not usually allowed out of doors, have attended services in their best clothes.” This touch of local colour was appreciated by the Colonial Office for what it was: a bit of light relief in an otherwise important document. Journal, June 1917Google Scholar, CO273/460 Desp. 241, p. 470. Later in the same year, Tights between two rival clubs of Malays are noted, with the warning that “serious trouble” was feared. It was said that one group, based in Iliran and led by Syed Sagof, son of Ungku Syed of Paloh, was in conflict with another gang from Losong (the base of another well-known line of religious teachers). It seems likely that passions were inflamed by theology. But there the matter isdropped; the clashes did not become serious enough to demand British attention, so tensions and controversies remain unexplained. Journal, 27 Nov. 1917Google Scholar, CO273/461 Desp. 374, p. 475.

A similar condescension about Trengganu's internal religious life is evident in references in early 1918 to an Egyptian “trouble maker” who came to Trengganu (after being expelled from Kelantan), bringing his message that the type of drum used in Trengganu mosques was unlawful. The ensuing debate involved the Sultan and a state-wide summoning of religious teachers and high officials, but was irrelevant to the Colonial Office and so is only mentioned in passing. Journal, Feb. & Mar. 1918Google Scholar, both to be found in CO273/472 Desp. 115, p. 24. The only other occasion when religion was mentioned (apart from generalizations about piety, strict fasting, etc.) were a couple of references to Turkish flags (e.g., at the celebrations of Safar, Mandi, Journal, Jan. 1915Google Scholar, CO273/425 Desp. 100, p. 383), of pro-Turkish sentiments during the First World War (Journal, 5 Oct. 1918Google Scholar, CO273/474 Desp. 342, p. 418), and speculation as to the role of Islam in the “Disturbance” or small peasant revolt of 1928.

⁴⁰ Complaints about too lenient justice emphasize that horror descriptions of stoning, amputation, and flogging often associated with Western criticism of Islamic law were of little relevance to Trengganu. When Conlay first arrived he noted that the more severe of the courts'punishments (strangulation, imprisonment, whipping, possible stoning of “incontinent” women) were rare. Journal, 2 Aug. 1909Google Scholar, CO273/35I Desp. 303, p. 195. On dial: Journal, 24 Sept. 1914Google Scholar, CO273/412 Desp.518, p.318; 23 Nov. 1914, CO273/413 Desp. 605, p. 179; 7/10 Mar. 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 117, p. 196. On tembak gelap, 8 Aug. 1917, CO273/461 Desp. 374, p. 475. Conlay notes five executions: two Malay, three Chinese, Journal, 2 Aug. 1909Google Scholar, CO273/351 Desp. 303, p. 195; for Humphreys's estimate of two (the Malays?) see 20 Mar. 1917, CO273/459 Desp. 110, p. 553.

⁴¹ Journal, 17 Jun. 1916Google Scholar, CO273/446 Desp. 235, p. 37, where Humphreys comments that “The independence of thejudicature is an unheard of idea”, and mentions that the courts were, after all, only some fifteen years old. See also the Bucknill Report, and for typical remarks on the courts powerlessness vis-a-vis the elite, Journal, 17 May 1913Google Scholar, CO273/399 Desp. 317, p. 477; May 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 186, p. 417; Robert, “Malay Ruling Class”, p. 110Google Scholar.

⁴² Journal, 4 Jan. 1911Google Scholar, CO273/372 Desp. 105, p. 368. A.R.T., 1913.

⁴³ Journal, 6 Feb. 1916Google Scholar, CO/273/445 Desp. 102, p. 98; see, for further examples, Robert, , “Malay Ruling Class”, pp. 112–15Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Journal, 28 Apr. 1918Google Scholar, CO273/472 Desp. 155, p. 177. As early as 10 Jun. 1911 (Journal, CO273/374 Desp. 344, p. 425), the Agent had commented critically on the administration of the lottery. Details on the lottery in 1918 exist in High Commissioner's Office (HCO) file no. 999,1918 in the Arkib Negara, Kuala Lumpur; see also Robert, “Malay Ruling Class”, pp. 168–70Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Journal, 15 Nov. 1915Google Scholar, CO273/444 Desp. 7, p. 262; Feb. 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 102, p. 98; Mar. 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 117, p. 1%; minute on Journal, Apr. 1916Google Scholar and May 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 186, p. 417; June 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 235, p. 37; 9 July 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 275, p. 230.

⁴⁶ Journal, lO Jun. 1911Google Scholar CO273/374 Desp.344, p. 425; A.R.T. 1915. Derrett, , op. cit., pp. 13–14Google Scholar, writing of courts in India below the high court level, observes that the practitioners were locally trained Indians, “none of whom could have become professionally qualified in the Islamic or Hindu classical systems. They started their careers as mere ‘pleaders’, and acquired proficiency in the somewhat rough-and-ready atmosphere of the juniormost courts, the babits of which at first resembled generally the informal ways of the native courts which preceded the British system in some areas. The intellectual gap betweenjudgements delivered in the High Courts, where some judges were English barristers of long standing, and the country vakils who were supposed to advise their clients according to them, was and to a large extent still remains, ‘marked’. A striking dichotomy emerged between the court law, and the popular law.”

⁴⁷ Journal, 30 May 1914Google Scholar, CO273/411 Desp. 324, p. 167; 4 Sept. 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 329, p. 398.

⁴⁸ Trengganu State Secretary's File (SUK) in Arkib Negara, Kuala Lumpur; SUK Tr no. 542, 1339; SUK Tr no. 269, 1338.

⁴⁹ Trengganu Government Gazette (stencil), vol. 111, A.H. 1358, p. 31Google Scholar, gives “The Pleaders and Petition Writers Enactment” and the 1939 List; the Gazette is in the Arkib Negara, T/SUK/3. In an interview in Kuala Trengganu, May 1974, Haji Omar bin Haji Arshad described his work as a pleader during the 1920s. He himself had a not typical career; he was born in Pekan, Pahang, in the mid 1880s, where his father was one of the Sultan's retainers. He studied in a Malay school for three years, came to Trengganu, and worked as a policeman during Zainal Abidin's reign (d. 1918), he became a lawyer in the early 1920s. He studied religion from Syeds, and also hukum sharak from various teachers; he later learned “white man's law” (hukum orang putih) from Trengganu's acknowledged expert, Che Maidin b. Mohd. Ibrahim, an Indian Muslim who had come to Trengganu with the English Legal Adviser in 1936. Haji Omar saw no conflict between English and Islamic law: they had the same aims but different methods, and could usefully supplement each other. If there was no specific Enactment, one turned to the fikh (Sharī'a law)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ A.R.T. 1915, Agents' references to help from the Hussein, wakil Syed occur in, e.g., Journal, Jan. 1912Google Scholar, CO273/384 Desp. 70, p. 412, 25 Nov. 1912, CO273/388 Desp. 629, p. 340.

⁵¹ For several references to “Loyar buruk”, etc., see the Journal of the Assist. Adviser of Kemaman for 1935, in Arkib Negara, Kuala Lumpur.

⁵² Journal, May 1914Google Scholar, CO273/411 Desp. 324, p. 167, and Jun. 1914, CO273/411 Desp. 370, p. 278.

⁵³ Information on Busu came from incidental references in the sources cited in the following three notes, and an interview with his son, Haji Taib b. Haji Busu, Kuala Trengganu, Apr. 1974. Haji Taib indicated that Busu wrote for al-Hikmah (Kelantan), and Warta Malayu. Roff, William R., Bibliography of Malay and Arabic Periodicals Published in the Straits Settlements and Peninsular Malay States, 1876-1941, London Oriental Bibliographies, vol. 3 (London, 1972), p. 48Google Scholar, notes that Al-Hikmah appeared in Kota Bharu 1934-41, and on p. 62 that a Warta Malaya began publication in Singapore in 1898.

⁵⁴ Bucknill Report, pp. 101-2.

⁵⁵ Ibid., Journal, II Mar. 1916Google Scholar, CO273/445 Desp. 117, p. 196; 31 May 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 186, p. 417; 17 Jun. 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 235, p. 37; 10 Jul. 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 275, p. 230; 17 Aug. 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 308, p. 344; 4 Sept. 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 329, p. 398.

⁵⁶ The facts on Busu's career after 1918 are scanty, but suggest a classic case of a critical rebel absorbed into the establishment. In the early 1920s he was still the critical wakil (SUK Tr 250/1338, SUK Tr 610/1338, SUK Tr 269/1338, SUK Tr. 294/1339), but at the same time he appears as a petitioner for a car allowance as a member of the Municipal Council (SUK Tr 669/1339). In A.H. 1342(1923/24) Busujoined the Justice Department (Cawangan Keadilan) and in 1927 was head of the Department. (His career was helped by his friendship with Humphreys, who no doubt valued his services during the administrative changes after 1919). In the middle of 1938 he went on the pilgrimage to Mecca, perhaps because he was already a very sick man (with pulmonary tuberculosis). He retired in 1939, but his last few years were complicated by a long wrangle with the unsympathetic Legal Adviser (Calder) who refused to allow pension payments till his papers were in order. File of the British Adviser Trengganu (BAT) Arkib Negara, Kuala Lumpur, 1234/1938. His name lives on as a street name in Kuala Trengganu: Jalan Haji Busu.

⁵⁷ Sutherland, , op. cit.Google Scholar; The chronology of developments in the Religious Affairs Department is uncertain, but it seems that in 1901/2 at the same time as the first Courts undang-undang was passed — there wasalso an “Instruction to Imams, Khatibs and Bilals relating to the Solemnization of Muhammedan Marriages”. In 1915 The Singapore and Straits Directory (Singapore, 1915)Google Scholar already lists a Minister for Religious Affairs. The outline given here is based on scattered references in Annual Reports, the Journals, the Directory, and interviews. A forthcoming Universiti Kebangsaan (Kuala Lumpur) M.A. thesis by Mohamed Sarim Mustajab, “Islam dan Perkembangannya dalam Mashyarakat Melayu, 1900- 1940”discusses British policy towards Islam. See also SUK Tr. 530/1346. Roff, , The Origins of Malay Nationalism, pp. 78–81, notes establishment use of religious authority and rights of censorship.Google ScholarWilier, Thomas Frank, “Religious Administrative Development in Colonial Malay States, 1874-1941 (Ph. D. diss., University of Michigan, 1975), pp. 61–68, 216-53Google Scholar, surveys developments in Trengganu, without, however, answering the question of chronology.

⁵⁸ Journal, 18 Aug. 1909Google Scholar, CO273/351 Desp. 303, p. 195 (p. 20 of file); 12 Feb. 1915, CO273/425 Desp. 131, p. 522; 29 May 1915, CO273/427 Desp. 326, p. 298; 15 Aug. 1917, CO273/461 Desp. 374, p. 475.

⁵⁹ A.R.T. 1916/1917.

⁶⁰ Journal, Apr/May 1910Google Scholar, CO273/361 Desp, 244, p. 586; 10 Jan. 1911, CO273/372 Desp. 105, p. 368; 23 June 1914, CO273/411 Desp. 370, p. 278.

⁶¹ Bucknill Report p. 57; A.R.T. 1915; A.R.T. 1932; Journal, 13 and 18 Nov. 1915Google Scholar, CO273/444 Desp. 7, p. 262; 17 Jun. 1916, CO273/446 Desp. 235, p. 37.

⁶² An official biography of Haji Wan Suleiman b. Wan Daud is given in BAT 49/1936; his death in Sept. 1936 is recorded in Annual Report 1936. His reputation extended beyond Trengganu: the Singapore Muslim Association (Persatuan Moslem Singapura), for example, wrote asking for his advice (SUK 90/1336).

⁶³ Not that all Judges were beyond reproach: one Hakim was charged with embezzlement in 1913; he was imprisoned (where he was severely mishandled by bis former clients), but subsequently released and allowed to go to Mecca. There he stayed for some time before returning to Trengganu and becoming a high adviser to Sultan Muhammed; Journals, 8 May 1913Google Scholar, CO273/399 Desp. 317, p. 477; 12 Jan. 1919, CO273/486 Desp. 46, p. 373. There were also complaints about Che Nik and other Hakim: either indirectly, via lampoons (e.g., Journal, 2 Mar. 1918Google Scholar, CO273/472 Desp. 115, p. 24) or directly, by appeal to the High Commissioner, e.g., HCO 996/1918. Sometimes, too, violence was used, as when Che Nik was attacked in 1917 (Journal, 11 Feb. 1917Google Scholar, CO273/459 Desp. 68, p. 326. But it remains extremely difficult to assess the importance, typicality, or motivation of such reactions, as little information is given, and much was no doubt partisan in origin.

⁶⁴ The Fugitive Offenders Act was important for the British, to prevent Trengganu becoming arefugefor men wanted in other states; work on it was already underway in 1911, reached a peak of activity in 1912, and continued to be a source of conflict until 1917. See, e.g., Journal, Mar. 1911Google Scholar, CO273/353 Desp. 2S5, p. 604, Mar. 1912, CO273/386 Desp. 272, p. 101; Nov. 1912, CO273/388 Desp. 629, p. 340; 10 Apr. 1916and 20 May 1916 both in CO273/445 Desp. 186, p. 417; on the Penal Code, see 5 Dec. 1912, CO273/398 Desp. 49, p. 190. In Mar. 1917 the Agent had two interviews with the Sultan and apparently succeeded in convincing him that an attempt should be made to combine a more effective Penal Code with the hukum shara, on 29 Mar. the Sultan said that he would order the Mufti to draft a new penal code, 20 and 29 Mar. 1917, CO273/459 Desp. 110, p. 553. The debate continued through 1919-20 and into 1921, however, with the British in 1919 hoping for a slightly modified version of the Indian Penal Code, and the Trengganu Pejabat Keadilan and advisory committees still struggling with the religious implications in 1921 (see below). Finally, in 1933, a Penal Code based on the Straits Settlements, Kedah, and Kelantan codes was passed; A.R.T. 1919; for Enactments, see CO717/104; SUK Tr. 215/1338; Trengganu Chief Ministers archive (MB Tr) Arkib Negara, Malaysia, MB Tr 325/1340, MB Tr 497/1352.

⁶⁵ Trengganu Enactments no. 1 of A.M. 1335, in CO273/473 Desp. 271, p. 359, A.R.T. 1917.

⁶⁶ Journal, 31 Dec. 1917Google Scholar. CO273/471 Desp. 46, p. 244; 22 Mar. 1919, CO273/487 Desp. 122,p. 57;4 May 1919, CO273/487 Desp. 243, p. 427. The three Judges appointed in 1919 were the Sultan's Private Secretary (later Chief Minister) Haji Ngah (Datuk Amar) the influential Tengku Chik Ahmad b. Abdul Rahman (Tengku Sen Bijaya di Raja), a close family member and counsellor of the Sultan, and Tuan Embong, Syed Abu Bakar b. Abdul Rahman al-Idrus, the spiritual leader from the influential al-Idrus Syed dynasty.

⁶⁷ The selection of the hakim was made during consultation between the powerful Raja Muda Muhammed, Datuk Amar and the Pejabat Keadilan; of the seventeen men selected, eleven were Tengku (aristocracy), two were Engku (high title, indicating Arab descent), two were Datuk (high merit title), and two were Haji. SUK Tr 76/1335.

⁶⁸ Journals, 20 May 1916, CO273/445 Desp. 186, p. 417; 5 Dec. 1916, CO273/459 Desp. 11, p. 20; 17 Jan. 1917, CO273/459 Desp. 36, p. 207; 2 Aug. 1917 and 24 Oct. 1917 both in CO273/461 Desp. 374, p. 475; 20 Oct. 1918, CO273/474 Desp. 342, p. 418. The Enactment is listed in CO273/473 Desp. 271. See Ghazahi, Abdulla Zakaria bin, “Haji Ngah Mohamed bin Yusof — Datuk Sen Amar Di Raja Trengganu”, Jernal Sejarah 14 (1976/1977): 11–23Google Scholar, particularly 13-14,18,21-22, for an account of the formidable Datuk Amar's life (including his religious studies in Mekka and Trengganu) and his opposition to British legal intervention. This article gives the Trengganu view. For the other side, seethe rather insensitive and irritated entries of the informal monthly Diary by J. E. Kempe (Adviser 193S-36) in Rhodes House, Oxford, Mss. Ind. Oc. S. 94 (12).

⁶⁹ Journal, 3 Feb. 1915Google Scholar, CO273/425 Desp. 131, p. 522; 20 Mar. 1917, CO273/459 Desp. 110, p. 553.

⁷⁰ Journal, 20 Mar. 1917Google Scholar, CO273/459 Desp. 110, p. 553. Humphreys was presumably advocating a more flexible line of Siyasa Shariyya (Malay-StanM). the rulers' right to implement legal doctrine by passing regulations in accordance with the spirit of the revealed law. See Coulson, , op. cit., pp. 132–34,Google ScholarSmith, , op. cit., pp. 29–31Google Scholar. References to 5tosa/occur several times in the Journal; and also the A.R.T. 1918, p. 13, notes increasing use of Siasat at the Hakim's discretion to enable Judges to make decisions in accordance with circumstantial — and strictly speaking inadmissible — evidence. For a brief introduction to modernization of Islamic law in Turkey and the Middle East, see Iiebesney, Herbert J., “Stability and Change in Islamic Law”, Middle East Journal 21 (1967); 16–34Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Bucknill Report; Sutherland, , op. citGoogle Scholar.

⁷² Sutherland, , op. cit.Google Scholar, CO537/797; Robert, , “Malay Ruling Class”, pp. 80–81Google Scholar, 414, n. 175.

⁷³ MB Tr 244/1340; A.R.T. 1920.

⁷⁴ A.R.T. 1921, p. 7.

⁷⁵ MB Tr 325/1340.

⁷⁶ A. R. T. 1927-29, p. 7; SUK Tr. 791/1346 notes the Advisers'complaints about delays, bad language, “the completely bad conduct of cases”, and improper questioning of witnesses. On the Penal Code, MB Tr 497/1352; in MB Tr 729/1348, the British Adviser pressed for the replacement of the “anti-khahvat” laws by a proper, comprehensive enactment.

⁷⁷ The “wild and bad”outstation courts (Journal, 22-24 Mar. 1919Google Scholar, CO273/487Desp. 122, p. 57) where justice was very much an individual matter for the local chiefs, were replaced after 1921 by courts similar to those in Kuala Trengganu. The Jejahan Timur (Eastern district of Kemaman) was created in 1924, with a Joint Court of the Assistant Adviser and Malay State Commissioner; Magistrate and kathi courts followed. The same pattern was repeated in the otherdistricts, the Northern Division of Besut being created in 1932. The early 1930s also saw the establishment of central and district Land Courts under the supervision of the European Commissioner of Lands and Mines. A.R.T. 1924; A.R.T. 1926; A.R.T. 1927-29; A.R.T. 1932; Sheppard, op. cit., pp. 58-60.

⁷⁸ Since knowledge on this period is scarce, the letter is worth quoting in detail. It is to be found in CO7171/108. Of the three divisions of the Supreme Court, Caldecott noted, that of Kuala Trengganu was still presided over by “a Malay judge, an officer of advanced years and doubtful integrity”, while in the Districts at least the Assistant Adviser had a seat. In Kuala Trengganu, therefore, appeals from the Malay Magistrates Courts were heard by the Malay Judge of the Supreme Court, and “British ideas ofjustice are not found until the Court of Appeal is reached, where the one European judge can be, and has been, outvoted” (the Court of Appeal at the time consisted of the British Adviser, the Mentri Besar, and the Mufti [Datuk Kamal Wangsa, Sulaiman b. Daud]. The High Commissioner continued: “Of the presentjudicial system in Kuala Trengganu, which district comprises over 50% of the population of the whole state, it can only be said that it is thoroughly unsound, making for grave miscarriages of justice in criminal cases, and inspiring so little confidence in civil matters that it is a common practice for Chinese to refer theirdisputes to the Commissioner of Police (in his capacity as Protector of Chinese) rather than take them to the courts.” The faults lie partly in the training of Magistrates, who have little or no legal education, but partly in the legal system which calls for “immediate and radical”alteration. “There is no Evidence Enactment, and there is no law of Criminal or Civil Procedure. The Courts apply, in theory at any rate, the provisions of Muhammedan Law, such as they are in such matters. I say'in theory'because it is certain that very few of the (Trengganu Officers who sit in the courts have any substantial knowledge of Muhammedan Law. But these (Magistrates freely apply provisions of Muhammedan Law which are inimical to British ideas of the administration of justice, and which have lost authority in the other states of Malaya. The most flagrant extreme is the use of the oath, by employing which they are able to avoid the personal responsibility of a decision. Thus, instead of having to decide whether a person is guilty of an offence or liable in a civil suit, they can order him to take the oath fifty times, denying guilt or liability as the case may be. To what extent this oath is still invested in Trengganu with the awfulness with which it is traditionally associated it is somewhat difficult to say: though, the remarkably low standard of religious practice, outwardly at least, in the State, suggests the inference that many Trengganu Muhammedans would cheerfully forswear themselves for an adequate monetary reward. But whatever be the spirit in which such an oath is now taken n i Trengganu, the fact that a case can be decided by the use of it is to my mind utterly wrong in a Malay state under British protection.

“I can myself see no reason why Muhammedan Law should be allowed to persist in Trengganu to an extent which does not now obtain in any other State in the Peninsula; so faras religious susceptibility can be guaged by the standard of religious practice, the relegation of Muhammedan Law in Trengganu to the place t i occupies in other states would give very little offence to the majority of the Muhammedan population: and I consider that such relegation is one of the essentials in any attempt to raise the standard of administration of justice in the state. “In order to train officers in the new law, a Legal Adviser should be appointed at the earliest opportunity. The Adviser would spend the first six months giving lectures to officials on Evidence and Procedure, and redrafting the enactments; the present Judge would then be retired and the European Legal Adviser would become the European Judge for the entire state.”

⁷⁹ Sutherland, , op. cit.,Google ScholarRobert, , “Malay Ruling Class”, p. 436Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ MB Tr 230/1353; MB Tr 328/1353; MB Tr 386/1353.

⁸¹ A.R.T. 1937, pp. 47-49, gives details; see also ART. 1936, p. 18. On the Courts (Amendment) Act, see CO717/136.

⁸² A.R.T. 1936, p. 18; see also CO717/127, where the High Commissioner writes to the Colonial Office (dated 2 Apr. 1937): “This revision in reality approximates more to a building up of a new corpus of law for the State. The law at present, where available at all, is found in over one thousand proclamations.…”The product of these labours can be seen in The Laws of Trengganu in Force on the 20th Day of February, 1939, corresponding to the 1st Day of Muharram, 1358, rev. ed., prepared under the authority of the Revised Edition of the Laws Enactment, by the Legal Adviser, Trengganu, 5 vols. (Singapore, 1941)Google Scholar.

⁸³ Sennett, C. W. A., comp., The Trengganu Magistrates Handbook (Singapore, 1937)Google Scholar. The book was modelled on W. S. Gibson, Handbook for Magistrates in the Federated Malay States, and a Malay handbook by N. R. Jarrett, ex-Judge of the KeIantan Supreme Court. On the title page was a quotation from Lord Chancellor Bacon: “Injustice makes justice bitter, and delays make it sour.”

⁸⁴ CO717/136, “Provisional List with Index of the Laws of Trengganu”, with an introduction by A. E. Cooke.

⁸⁵ Abdullah Zakaria b. Ghazali, op. cit., and Kempe, Diary.

⁸⁶ Correspondence in BAT 49/1936.

⁸⁷ BAT696/1936; correspondence; Kempe's memo was sent to Datuk Amar, dated 4/6/36. For details on pay and organization in the Pejabat Ugama, see also MB Tr 787/1356. Wilier, , op. cit., 237–54Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ BAT 1106/1936; enactments 37,38, and 54 in CO717/124, and on religious inspectors' rights to bring prosecutions, BAT 1168/1938; Roff, , Origins of Malay Nationalism, pp. 78–81Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ BAT 62/1936, BAT 1292/1936, and BAT 405/1935.

⁹⁰ Sutherland, , op. citGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ See note 70.

⁹² On the elites definition of land rights in their own interest, see Robert, “Malay Ruling Class”, ch. 5.