Why was JWW Birch killed? (The real reason JWW Birch was killed).

Today, 20th January 2020, is the 146th anniversary of the signing of the Pangkor Treaty in 1874 AD.

The Pangkor Treaty resulted in the establishment of the British Resident system in Perak, and later, was used as a template for similar system in other Federated Malay States. It was the beginning of British rule in the rest of Malaya after the Strait Settlement states.

The first British Resident in Perak was JWW Birch (James Wheeler Woodford Birch). His career as the first British Resident in Perak ended when he was assassinated in Pasir Salak during a visit to the area.

As school children, during History lesson, we were taught that JWW Birch was killed because he attempted to subvert or destroy or insult the Malay customs and religion (mencemarkan adat, duli dan agama) or something to that effect.

At that time, it never occurred to me to ask how did he specifically try to do that. At that time (1980's) nationalistic fervour against the British was strong, and also, as a child, my critical thinking skills was still developing.
After somehow accepting that JWW Birch deserved it, that question was forgotten until recently.

Did he force the Malays to eat with forks and spoons instead of with their hands?
Did he enter their homes without taking off his shoes?
Did he force them to eat bread instead of rice?
Did he ban wayang kulit, zapin, or kuda kepang and try to replace them with Shakespeare's play?
Did he force them to wear suits and ties instead of the baju Melayu?
I do not have any evidence of the above, but somehow, I do not think he tried to do any of those.

Did he try to ban construction of mosques?
Did he try to ban the teaching of Islam?
The history book never mentioned this.
So, again, I do not think so.

Did he try to convert the Malays to his religion?
Sure, there were Christian missionaries that came and set up mission schools, but those were done by Christian missionaries, not personally by JWW Birch. He was just a British Resident, an administrator.
Plus, there was no evidence of forced conversion by those missionary schools.
So, again NO.

Did he try to abolish the Malay monarchy?
Again, NO.
Even when the British exiled Sultan Abdullah to the Seychelles, they propped up another Malay Sultan in his place. It was in the British interest to make sure the Malay monarchy system was preserved.
(The reason for this will take a full length post. Maybe another time.)

The Pangkor Treaty of 1874 was specific. The Sultan remained as the ruler and the purview of religion and Malay custom were maintained under the Sultan.

The British knew better than to meddle in those.
Well, except for one thing.

JWW Birch attempted to abolish slavery in Perak (and by extension in Malaya). Unfortunately, for JWW Birch, the Malay elites at that time considered owning slaves and slavery as part of the Malay customs.

Owning slaves was not just a sign that you are a bangsawan.
As slaves are considered property, the more slaves you own, the richer and wealthier you are considered.
And the rich and wealthy were, and are, as always, more powerful and more influential.

In the end, it is about money and power.
So, no, JWW Birch was not killed because he insulted the Malay custom and religion.
In the end, it is always the same.
It was because of money and power.
(But in this case money and power rooted in an abhorrent tradition.)

Maharajalela was not defending Malay/Islam honour or dignity or the Sultan.
If he was, he and his peers would have opposed the Pangkor Treaty and fought against the British rule constituted by that treaty.

As the British was clever enough not to put anything in the treaty that jeopardise the Malay elites wealth and power, they did not (strongly) oppose the treaty, even though they lost their independence.

In a way, I wished they did go to war against the establishment of the Pangkor Treaty.
As it was, they were willing to go to war to preserve an abhorrent tradition such as slavery rather than to preserve their independence.

They died trying to preserve slavery rather than trying to defend their independence.
(This sentence is full of irony, it is unbearable to write and read. Died trying to prevent other people's freedom rather than trying to defend your own freedom!)

Why am I pointing this out, when there are no more slavery in Malaysia?
(Or is there?)
Well, because learning history is about learning from history.

It says something about the moral compass of the Malay, or at least of the Malay elites that time.
Obviously, they were willing to die defending an abhorrent tradition rather than preserving their freedom.
Is this the kind of moral you want to uphold and teach your children?

The Malay has ("had" now?) a saying, "Biar mati anak, jangan mati adat".
Which adat are you referring to?

Is defending corrupt leaders part of that adat?

Maharajalela's followers were willing to die defending slavery, which they considered part of Malay adat and custom.
Nowadays, followers of corrupt Malay leaders are willing to die defending those same corrupt leaders, just because the corrupt leaders are Malay and they propound the same tired propaganda of Malay dignity and honour.

Will the Malays never learn from history?
I guess not since many do not know their own history.