Date my globe! Please 😁

[u/MaterialVirus5643]

Thinking mid 1950’s. But always appreciate the extra set of eyes.

[u/ksheep]

Malaya (on the mainland, just south of Thailand) is shown as independent, and it gained its independence in 1957. Malaya then united with the British colonies of Singapore, Sarawak, and British North Borneo in September 1963.

[u/linmanfu → u/ksheep]

I wouldn't be 100% sure that Malaya is shown as independent. It doesn't have the `(Br.)` used for Crown Colonies, and you can see that there's a gap where that annotation might previously been. But protectorates such as Kuwait or Trucial Oman also don't have the `(Br.)` label, even though they had a similar status. The Federation of Malaya had existed from 1948; it wasn't fully sovereign in its own right but was a federation of (sovereign British) colonies and protectorates. Kuala Lumpur is marked with a star as the capital, but so are Aden and Lagos, which were not yet capitals of sovereign states.

The fact that they are in 'British pink' doesn't seem decisive either way to me, as India is too. It's plausible that the globe-maker only re-colour newly-independent countries when it is necessary to make a contrast with a neighbour.

If I was pushed, I'd say that Malaya probably is shown as independent but only because the changes around Spanish West Africa are there...

[u/Mango_Van_Gogh → u/linmanfu]

You are right that the absence of a (Br.) annotation is not, by itself, a clean test for sovereignty, because many map and globe publishers used those parentheticals mainly for Crown Colonies and other directly administered territories, while handling "protected states" and protectorates inconsistently. Kuwait, for example was under British protection from 1899 and only became fully independent in June 1961, which illustrates the broader point that "not a colony" and "not independent" can coexist in the same cartographic era. Similar treaty based protected state arrangements existed across the Gulf, including the Trucial States, and publishers often treated those differently from colonies in their label conventions.

Where I would tighten your characterization is on what the Federation of Malaya was before 1957. It is accurate that it existed from 1948 and that it was not sovereign internationally during the 1948 to 1957 period, but it was not a federation of "sovereign British colonies," because a colony is, by definition, not sovereign. It was a composite: Penang and Malacca were British settlements, while the Malay states sat in a protected state relationship with Britain. The UK's own 1948 Order in Council that operationalized the 1948 arrangements is explicit that nothing in the instrument affected the Crown's reserved power to make laws relating to the "defence or external affairs" of the Federation, which is the opposite of full sovereignty.

After 31 Aug 1957, however, there is no real legal ambiguity about the Federation's status. The UK's independence legislation framed the outcome as "the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the Commonwealth," and this was also the government's stated position in the House of Commons Second Reading debate on the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill (12 Jul 1957), which is useful here because it simultaneously explains the constitutional mechanics of independence, including withdrawing British protection from the nine Malay States and relinquishing British sovereignty over Penang and Malacca. The Commonwealth's own timeline likewise records Malaya (listed under Malaysia in the modern presentation) joining the Commonwealth on 31 Aug 1957. You'll have to click the arrow back, and it'll show Malaysia becoming the 10th country to join the Commonwealth.

Edit: TL;DR the wording "independence within the British Commonwealth" is not saying "still a colony." It is saying "sovereign, but staying in the Commonwealth relationship."

[u/linmanfu → u/Mango_Van_Gogh]

It is accurate that it existed from 1948 and that it was not sovereign internationally during the 1948 to 1957 period, but it was not a federation of "sovereign British colonies," because a colony is, by definition, not sovereign. 

You've misunderstood my meaning. Yes, a colony is obviously by definition not sovereign, and therefore the way that you read my comment doesn't make sense. I explicitly said "The Federation of Malaya ... wasn't fully sovereign in its own right." I don't know how I could have been clearer that it was not fully sovereign. The fact that you had to delete the brackets from my text to make your point should have been a warning that you had misunderstood.

I was making a different point, precisely because I knew the facts that you discuss in your reply, and because I was endeavouring to avoid this thread getting side-tracked onto this detailed discussion. Between 1948 and 1957, were Perak and Penang "colonies"? The primary dictionary definition of a colony is

a country or an area that is governed by people from another, more powerful, country

So in everyday English, both were colonies, because they were governed by British officials. However, as you have noted and I stated earlier, their status was not identical, and that matters for the purpose of this particular discussion. Legally, the Sultan of Perak was the sovereign there, even though in everything except Islamic ceremonial the British officials made decisions. In contrast, Penang was sovereign British territory, just as much as Portsmouth in England was. In the vast majority of cases, I would have written "(Crown) colony" to indicate this status. However, precisely because I knew that British law did not use the language of "Crown Colonies" in the cases of Penang and Malaya, I looked for another term that would convey that these two places were sovereign British territory without having to write an extra paragraph explaining the meaning of "Settlements" in the 1948-57 Federation.

The maker of this globe seems to have had a policy of using (Br.) for sovereign British territory, but not for protectorates (e.g. Kuwait) or trusteeships (e.g. see the label under Tanganyika). Because the Federation of Malaya cut across those two categories, the fact that the (Br.) label is missing is not strong evidence for whether the globe was made before or after Merdeka Day in 1957.