1931年至1957年馬來西亞公民權法律演變：以歷史制度主義為視角

Abstract

本論文以歷史制度主義為理論視角，探討1931年至1957年間馬來亞（今馬來西亞）公民權法律的演變，強調早期制度選擇與政治協商如何構築出具備持續性與路徑依賴性的公民身分制度。研究旨在回答兩個核心問題：（1）1946至1957年間有哪些歷史因素深刻影響馬來亞的公民法律發展？（2）這些因素又如何形塑最終於1957年誕生的《聯邦憲法》？

本研究聚焦三項關鍵影響因素：英國的去殖民策略、馬來亞各族政治菁英之間的協商，以及馬來亞緊急狀態所帶來的衝擊，並指出1956至1957年間的憲法談判是一個關鍵轉捩點。在此時期，英國殖民當局為確保順利移交政權，選擇與本地菁英合作，並鞏固社群政治架構，使殖民退場成為一場有管理的制度工程。此一安排最終促成非馬來人基於屬地主義（jus soli）獲得公民資格，並同時將馬來人特殊地位寫入憲法第153條，制度化其優勢地位。

本論文主張，1957年的憲政體系並非從零開始，而是在長期英殖統治所遺留下的制度基礎上層層堆疊而成。殖民時期透過法律多元制度與族群分離的行政與教育系統，早已為「族群差異化公民權」奠定基礎。從1946年馬來亞聯合方案的提出與失敗，到1948年馬來亞聯邦的成立，馬來人政治主導權的保障一步步地被制度化。

另外，1948年爆發的馬來亞共產主義危機是促使殖民政府和本土菁英加快公民權改革的主要動力，以吸納被視為潛在叛亂分子的華人群體。當時的公民政策具有高度戰略性，意圖以擴大政治參與換取忠誠，但其出發點並非建立平等理念，而是出於政治與安全考量。

在此期間，馬來民族統一機構（UMNO）、馬華公會（MCA）與印度國大黨（MIC）之間的協商也在憲法設計中扮演關鍵角色。這些協商一方面回應馬來族群的民族主義訴求，另一方面也為非馬來族群爭取平等政治與公民權利。最終，政治菁英同意透過屬地主義原則給予非馬來人公民身份，但條件是非馬來人必須接受馬來人在公職、語言與宗教上的優勢地位，形成後來所稱的「社會契約」。此協議進一步鞏固馬來西亞以族群為界線的公民權利，使馬來族群享有更多保障，而其他族群則面對制度性的劣勢。

本研究的貢獻在於揭示殖民遺緒、菁英協商與危機政治如何交織出馬來西亞具有路徑依賴特徵的公民權制度，並指出這些關鍵時期所形成的制度安排，如何透過政策回饋與社會適應而延續至今，影響當代政治局勢、族群關係與平等與國族認同的論辯。此一發現對於理解多元族群、後殖民社會中公民制度的建構與持續，具有跨國比較的理論意涵。

This thesis investigates the evolution of Malaysia’s citizenship laws from 1931 to 1957 through the lens of historical institutionalism, emphasizing how early institutional decisions and political bargains produced enduring and path-dependent frameworks of citizenship. It seeks to answer two key research questions: (1) What historical factors shaped Malaya’s citizenship legislation between 1946 and 1957? (2) How did these forces influence the constitutional negotiations that culminated in the 1957 Federal Constitution?

Focusing on three major independent variables—British decolonization strategy, elite negotiations among Malayan political actors, and the impact of the Malayan Emergency—this study identifies the 1956–1957 constitutional negotiations as a critical juncture. During this period, British officials, under pressure to ensure a smooth postcolonial transition, institutionalized a managed retreat by co-opting local elites and reinforcing communal structures. These arrangements culminated in the formalization of jus soli principles for non-Malays, alongside entrenched provisions for Malay special privileges—most notably codified in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

The thesis argues that the 1957 constitutional framework did not emerge in isolation but was shaped by layered institutional legacies dating back to British colonial governance. British colonial administrators had long fostered communal divisions through legal pluralism and separate educational and administrative systems, which laid the groundwork for an ethnically differentiated model of citizenship. These legacies were further institutionalized during the Malayan Union proposal of 1946, its subsequent failure, and the formation of the Federation of Malaya in 1948, where concessions were made to preserve Malay political primacy.

The Malayan Emergency in 1948 further accelerated this dynamic by pressuring both colonial authorities and local elites to broaden political inclusion as a counterinsurgency measure. Citizenship became a strategic tool to secure loyalty among the Chinese population, many of whom were suspected of communist sympathies. This inclusion, however, was tactical rather than ideological, reinforcing the pragmatic and communal basis of citizenship design.

Throughout the time, elite bargaining among UMNO, MCA, and MIC played a decisive role in shaping the final constitutional compromise. These negotiations balanced Malay ethno-nationalist demands with non-Malay aspirations for equal political and civil rights. As a result, citizenship was granted to non-Malays based on the jus soli principle, but in exchange for acceptance of Malay privileges in the public sector, language, and religion—creating what would later be known as Malaysia’s “social contract”. This settlement institutionalized a form of “ethnically differentiated citizenship,” in which the majority Malays enjoyed affirmative protections, while minorities faced structural disadvantages.

Ultimately, this study contributes to scholarship on postcolonial state-building by demonstrating how colonial legacies, elite bargaining, and emergency converged to produce a path-dependent model of citizenship in Malaysia. It highlights how institutional arrangements formed during critical junctures can persist through policy feedback and societal adaptation, shaping contemporary political dynamics, interethnic relations, and debates over equality and national identity. The findings offer broader relevance for understanding citizenship regimes in multiethnic, postcolonial societies grappling with historical divisions and institutional inertia.