The recent death of Anthony Brooke in Wanganui, New Zealand, at the ripe age of 99, has shocked many old Sarawakians, those still around, who had fought very hard with him to retain the Sarawak Raj. According to the Iban belief, anyone who dies at this age is said to be Pulai (going home to join his or her relatives), a rather happy occasion, really.
During his time, Anthony was surrounded by intrigue — political and family. For alleged misdemeanours, he was sacked, restored to office or title of Rajah Muda, dismissed again, recalled from the Army, title restored, head of temporary administration in exile during the war years, then disinherited, not consulted in matters regarding the Cession of Sarawak to the British Crown, and finally barred from entering Sarawak for 16 years.
In 1983, Anthony was invited by the state government on the occasion of Hari Kebangsaan. The Protocol Office allocated me the job to accompany him on a tour including a visit to the Annah Rais longhouse. Taking advantage of this privilege during the trip, I lured him into a discussion about politics, but he was more excited about the countryside. Before I could ask him about the Cession of Sarawak, he diverted my attention to the NGO he and his wife Gita had founded — Peace Through Unity. There my quest was politely diverted.
The ideals of his PTU were similar to the Moral Armament (MRA), a worldwide movement phenomenon in the early 1960s, to persuade all countries to sustain a global civilisation based on values of mutual respect, love, compassion and the brotherhood of man.
I managed, however, to get information from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, something about post-Cession events, in particular, his reference to the letter of June 2, 1946 written by LD Gammans, the Malay speaking MP who came to Sarawak to find out the views of the Native communities regarding Cession.
Apparently, Gammans had posed the following questions in his letter to the Sunday Times. From Dr Bob Reece, I got extracts of that letter, as follows:
“So half a million simple people have entrusted themselves rather sorrowfully and with many misgivings to our charge.
“What is our policy for the future?
“We shall certainly rule them honestly and justly, but shall we do it intelligently and according to a definite and accepted long-term policy?
“Shall we be guided by our experience and mistakes in other parts of the world?
“How are we going to protect them against the onrush of Western civilisation which may destroy their own culture without substituting anything really worthwhile or permanent?
“Are our ideas of education still dominated by the Victorian conceptions which have proved so disastrous elsewhere?
“What is to be our policy over immigration and development by European plantation and oil interests?
“In particular, what are we going to do about the Dayaks?”
For good measure, Gammans touched on his last question: “They are an intelligent, manly, virile and outspoken race. With the right handling they will have a great future.”
Interesting!
Death of a nation, beginning of Sarawak nationalism
According to Bob Reece in his book ‘The Name of Brookes’, Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1982, the Cession of Sarawak to the British Crown was the beginning of Sarawak nationalism and Anthony had a hand in its genesis. I would add that colonial rule and the introduction of local government elections in 1948 paved the way for the introduction of party politics as we know it today.
With the Cession and abdication of Vyner as Rajah, came the death of an independent country after 100 years of existence. Sarawak was recognised by the United States of America in 1850. Britain sent its first Consul (Rickettes) to Kuching in 1888 in recognition of the existence of an important state on the western seaboard of the island of Borneo sharing an important sea lane and connected to a vital trade route centring around Singapore.
While the Brooke Raj lasted a century, the Malay Community plus a few Dayaks in Kuching had monopolised power in the country. It was obvious that as privileged subjects they would want Anthony to take over from his uncle Vyner as Rajah of Sarawak and carry on with the patriarchal rule.
Blame the war
However, the above scenario was drastically changed by the Japanese Occupation (1941-1945) and post-war events. A new era was born: an independent Sarawak had morphed into a British Colony and into a state within a federation of states in 1963.
Cession
The subject of Cession is part of Anthony’s life. In a way, it is a reference point for many students of the politics of Sarawak.
To assess the views of the Native Communities regarding the Cession, two MPs were dispatched to Sarawak by the Colonial office — a similar survey of opinion, conducted by the Cobbold Commission in 1962 in assessing views regarding the formation of Malaysia, albeit smaller exercise, it being confined to members of the ruling elite.
The votes (19 for and 16 against Cession) to legitimise the transfer of power were bulldozed in the Council Negri by the British officials. The Native Members of the Council were split, more against than pro Cession. Four Ibans were members of the Council; Temenggong Koh and Bennet Jarrow voted for Cession, while Philip Jitam and Edward Jerah voted against the Cession. But it was the votes of the British officers, Archer heading the list, which tipped the balance. During the debate, the Native Members were assured of the protection of their adat lama (customs and traditions) by the new government.
This backdrop of the conditions in 1946 answered the last of Gammans’ questions. Similar questions as those posed by Gammans, with appropriate modifications, are as relevant today as they were many years ago. The answers may be different but answer them we must from time to time.
Food for thought
Perhaps, politicians seeking power during the forthcoming elections may like to look particularly at the last two questions relating to plantations and oil as well as the future of the Dayaks.
Ask if Anthony had become our ruler and used the 1941 Constitution as the supreme law of the state, would we have been better off than we are now?