APRIL 15 — In an increasingly complex world defined by geopolitical rivalry and economic warfare, the question of how smaller or mid-sized nations can navigate the pressures of great powers is more relevant than ever. Yet this dilemma is far from new. A look into South-east Asia’s past reveals that ancient Malay kingdoms had long employed sophisticated strategies — diplomacy when possible, warfare when necessary — to survive and thrive amid shifting regional and global power dynamics.
As maritime trading polities, kingdoms such as Srivijaya, Melaka, Aceh, Johor-Riau, and Patani sat at the crossroads of commerce between East and West. This geographic advantage made them natural players in international relations, often engaging with major powers like China, India, Siam (Thailand), Burma (Myanmar), Portugal, the Netherlands, and Britain.
Diplomacy served as a primary tool. The Srivijaya empire, based in Palembang, forged ties with China’s Tang and Song dynasties through tribute missions that solidified both trade and recognition. Likewise, the 15th-century Melaka Sultanate cultivated diplomatic relations with China, India, the Arab world, and regional powers like Pasai and Majapahit. Royal intermarriage, exchange of envoys, and the conferring of titles were among the tools used to build trust and legitimacy.
However, when diplomacy failed and sovereignty was threatened, Malay kingdoms did not hesitate to defend themselves. The fall of Melaka to the Portuguese in 1511 came only after diplomatic efforts broke down, prompting fierce resistance. This would later spur other regional powers such as Aceh and Johor to wage military campaigns against European colonial forces in the region.
On the island of Java, Fatahillah, a key leader of the Sultanate of Demak, successfully drove the Portuguese out of Sunda Kelapa (now Jakarta) in 1527. The Portuguese had established a stronghold there to control regional trade routes. Fatahillah, with the support of local forces, launched a military campaign against the Portuguese fort, resulting in the defeat of the Portuguese. After this victory, he renamed the port city Jayakarta, meaning “Victory City”. This marked a significant moment in the resistance against colonial powers in Southeast Asia.
Selangor successfully thwarted Dutch attempts to gain power on the Malay Peninsula in the late 19th century. The Sultan of Selangor resisted Dutch influence, preventing them from establishing significant control and allowing Selangor to remain independent, resisting colonial dominance until the arrival of the British.
In addition, the Malay kingdoms also had to contend with powerful regional neighbours. In the northern Malay Peninsula, polities such as Patani, Kedah, Kelantan, and Perlis experienced frequent pressure from Siam, sometimes forced to send tribute (such as the famous “bunga emas” or golden flowers) to maintain fragile peace. While diplomacy was pursued, military confrontations did occur — especially when Siam overstepped or sought to dominate local governance. Similarly, the Burmese expansion toward Ayutthaya and surrounding territories had spillover effects that disrupted Malay kingdoms in the region.
What is striking is that these kingdoms were neither passive nor powerless. They were active agents, able to shift strategies depending on the threat. In many cases, they blended diplomacy and military force in creative and calculated ways — reminiscent of the delicate balancing acts performed by modern South-east Asian nations today.
Malaysia as Asean chair: Drawing lessons from the past to navigate the trade war
The Malay kingdoms offer valuable lessons for Malaysia as Asean Chair in navigating modern trade wars. Melaka, with its strategic location, diversified trade relationships to avoid dependency on one empire, a strategy Malaysia can adopt by seeking new trade deals with emerging markets.
The Malay kingdoms offer valuable lessons for Malaysia as Asean Chair in navigating modern trade wars. — Bernama pic
Srivijaya excelled in diplomacy, fostering ties with China and India to secure trade routes. Malaysia can follow this by enhancing Asean’s diplomatic efforts to maintain access to both Chinese and American markets.
Under Sultan Abu Bakar (1862-1895), the Johor Sultanate successfully maintained its sovereignty. Through astute diplomacy, he secured Johor’s independence, with its sovereignty formally recognised by Queen Victoria in 1885. During his reign, Johor became one of the wealthiest and most modern Malay states due to his progressive economic policies and openness to foreign trade and investment.
Brunei’s neutral diplomacy was most effective during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Sultanate’s strategy of balancing relationships with both Western and Asian powers allowed it to protect its sovereignty, safeguard economic interests, and maintain independence amidst growing imperial influence in Southeast Asia.
Kedah, once invaded by Siam in the early 19th century, successfully restored its sovereignty through diplomacy in 1842. Following the occupation, Kedah negotiated with Siam and the British, resulting in a peace agreement that preserved its autonomy. The restoration also allowed Kedah to revive its economy, particularly in rice cultivation and regional trade, reinforcing the role of diplomacy in securing both sovereignty and economic stability.
Lastly, Aceh’s resilience in resisting colonial forces highlights the importance of combining diplomacy and strategic alliances to safeguard Asean’s interests in today’s economic landscape.
Drawing from the past to shape the future
The ancient Malay kingdoms, including Melaka, Srivijaya, Johor, Brunei, Kedah and Aceh, demonstrated that true strength does not merely come from military might but from the ability to adapt diplomatically and strategically to preserve sovereignty and regional stability.
Similarly, Malaysia’s role as Asean Chair provides an opportunity to lead the region through the challenges of the 21st century.
By emulating the diplomatic strategies and trade diversification tactics of past Malay kingdoms, Malaysia can help Asean not only navigate the complexities of the modern trade war but also ensure the region’s economic resilience and sovereignty.
Via a balanced approach of multilateral diplomacy, strategic alliances, and trade diversification, Malaysia, as Asean chair, could guide the region in navigating the turbulent waters of global economic tensions while keeping its 10 member States competitive and unified.
* Associate Professor Dr Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli is with the Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia and Associate Professor Dr Milda Istiqomah is with the Faculty of Law, Universitas Brawijaya
** This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
