JANUARY 12 — The question of Kedah’s status before 1909 has re-emerged in public discourse, particularly following claims that the state was once under Siamese sovereignty and was later “handed over” to the British under the Bangkok Treaty. Such assertions, however, reflect Siam’s unilateral perspective and do not represent the historical or legal position of the Malay Sultanates themselves.
Such claims do not align with historical records and contradict the fundamentals of traditional international law. To understand this matter properly, one must view the Bangkok Treaty of 1909 within a wider context, similar to earlier imperial agreements such as the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 and the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, which divided spheres of influence rather than transferring sovereignty over indigenous polities.
When examined alongside these precedents, it becomes clear that Kedah was never Siamese territory and remained a Malay kingdom with its own ruler throughout shifting regional dynamics.
The Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 divided the New World between Spain and Portugal but did not extinguish the sovereignty of indigenous empires such as the Aztecs or the Incas. It merely allocated zones of influence meant to avoid conflict between European powers. In fact, the Malacca Sultanate was still a sovereign state when the treaty was concluded. It was only colonised through Portuguese conquest in 1511, and not via the Treaty of 1494.
The same principle applied to the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824. Although Britain and the Netherlands divided the Malay world into their respective spheres, the Malay States were not surrendered. Johor retained its ruler, Siak remained autonomous and Aceh was explicitly recognised as an independent state. These kingdoms were not invited to the negotiations but their sovereignty endured. The treaty set boundaries for external intervention, not ownership.
Understanding the Bangkok Treaty through this lens reveals that the 1909 agreement also concerned influence, not sovereignty. The treaty text states that Siam relinquished claims over Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Perlis. Relinquishing claims is not the same as ceding territory. No clause in the treaty refers to the transfer of sovereignty. Britain itself did not recognise Kedah as Siamese territory. What existed was a diplomatic relationship framed by traditional Asian concepts of tribute, not outright political control.
The absence of the Sultan of Kedah from the negotiations has often been misinterpreted as proof that the state belonged to Siam. This is incorrect. The Malay States were also excluded from the Anglo-Dutch negotiations, yet they remained sovereign. Kedah was not invited because Kedah was not the claimant. The negotiations were between Britain and Siam, each attempting to resolve overlapping interests in the northern region of the peninsula.
What happened after 1909 is even more telling. If Kedah had truly been Siamese territory, the British would not have needed to conclude a new agreement with the Sultan of Kedah. Yet they did.
The protection agreements of 1909 to 1910 and the Kedah State Agreement of 1923 clearly recognised the authority and dignity of the Sultan. British advisers were appointed rather than Residents, and matters concerning Islam and Malay custom were expressly placed under the exclusive authority of the Sultan. This confirms that Kedah remained a Malay state with internal sovereignty, not a colonial possession.
The very fact that Britain had to sign fresh agreements with the Sultan after the Bangkok Treaty demonstrates that Kedah’s sovereignty survived intact. If Siam had owned Kedah, the British would have merely taken over a province and no royal authority would have required recognition. Instead, the British safeguarded the institution of the Sultanate and treated Kedah as a protected Malay state, not as transferred foreign territory.
In the context of nationhood today, promoting the narrative that Kedah belonged to Siam is not merely historically inaccurate but runs contrary to the principles of loyalty to King and Country enshrined in the Rukun Negara. The sovereignty of Kedah is an integral part of Malaysia’s constitutional identity. Undermining the legitimacy of a Malay state in favour of unfounded claims of foreign ownership risks eroding national unity and may be seen as an act approaching disloyalty or betrayal.
The Kedahans fought vigorously against Siamese invaders in one of the most protracted and consequential wars between 1821 and 1842, ultimately resulting in Siam’s failure to secure conquest. The Sultan was eventually restored to his throne.
Predictably, historical accounts written from the perspective of the conquering power do not admit military defeat, instead recasting the outcome as one achieved through diplomacy rather than through the sustained resistance of Malay warriors. The underlying fact, however, remains unchanged — Kedah was never successfully conquered.
With roots traditionally traced to the year 1136 and an exceptionally long royal continuity, the Kedah Sultanate today is widely regarded as the oldest in Malaysia and among the world’s oldest surviving sultanates.
Kedah was and remains a Malay Sultanate, not a conquered province of Siam.
* Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli is an associate professor in the International Law Unit, Faculty of Syariah and Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia and a research associate at the Asian Institute of International Affairs and Diplomacy, Universiti Utara Malaysia. Milda Istiqomah is an associate professor in the Faculty of Law, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
