Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:04:23.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leadership and Power within the Chinese Community of Sarawak: A Historical Survey*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

Craig A. Lockard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the 130 years since Chinese settlers first began coming to Sarawak, the pattern of leadership and power within the Chinese community has changed in a number of important respects. The purpose of this essay is to examine the nature of the changes manifested within the Chinese elite, and to analyze the ways in which the criteria for the selection of leaders and the exercise of power have changed from the establishment of Chinese settlement in the 1830's to the contemporary situation as part of the Malaysian Federation. The emphasis is on leadership and power within the Chinese community itself. At the same time the history of the Chinese elite is treated as a problem in local history.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 195 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The major source for this paper is the Sarawak Gazette, the only newspaper in the state before World War II. Published by the Sarawak Government primarily for the small European settlement, it nonetheless contained extensive discussion of current affairs in the state and gives an indication of which Chinese were considered most important by the authorities. There is no apparent reason why the reality of leadership and power within the Chinese community should differ substantially from how it was perceived by resident Europeans, some of whom were very shrewd and sympathetic observers. Appointments to government-sponsored bodies, space allotted to obituaries of prominent citizens, and so on, must have reflected to some extent the Chinese power structure. For the perspective from within the Chinese community I rely heavily on interviews with Sarawak residents, some of whom have a keen understanding of the historical situation, on commercial directories published (in Chinese) by the Kuching Chinese Chamber of Commerce, on anniversary books occasionally published by various Chinese associations, and on the anthropological study of the Sarawak Chinese by T'ien Ju-k'ang.

2 Jones, L.W., Report on the Census of Population Taken on 15th June I960 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 128Google Scholar. For further information on Chinese speech groups, see Ju-k'ang, T'ien, The Chinese of Sarawak (London School of Economics, 1953), pp. 10–15.Google Scholar

3 Noakes, J. L., A Report on the 1947 Population Census (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1950), p. 87.Google Scholar No comparable figures are available for 1950 but it is unlikely the percentages changed dramatically between 1947 and 1960. It is possible, however, that the Foochow and possibly the Hakka communities may have increased slightly.

4 Outrara, Richard, “Sarawak Chinese,” in Harrisson, Tom, ed., Peoples of Sarawak (Kuching: Sarawak Museum, 1959), p. 116.Google Scholar

5 Mundy, Rodney, Narrative of Events in Borneo and Celebes Down to the Occupation of Labuan, (London: John Murray, 1848), Vol. 1 p. 288.Google Scholar

6 See, eg., de Groot, J.J.M., Het Kongsiwezen van Borneo (s'Gravenhage: Nijhoff, 1885)Google Scholar; Jackson, James C., Chinese in the West Borneo Goldfields (Hull: University of Hull, 1970)Google Scholar; Barbara Ward, “A Hakka Kongsi in Borneo,” Journal of Oriental Studies, 1 (July, 1954), pp. 358–370; and Hsiang-lin, Lo, “A Chinese Presidential System in Kalimantan,” Sarawak Museum Journal, 9/15–16 (July-Dec, 1955), pp. 670–74.Google Scholar

7 The main documentary sources for Law are Sarawak Gazette (hereafter SG), March 2, 1885; Outram, op. cit., pp. 118–119; and Teochiu Association Centenary Volume (Kuching: Teochiu Association, 1965)Google Scholar, text in Chinese.

8 In the letter books of Charles Brooke, located in the Sarawak Museum, are two letters written by the second rajah for Law Kian Huat in introduction to the British Consul, Swatow, September 22, 1880, and August 10, 1883.

9 SG, March 2, 1885.

10 For Ong, see Siang, Song Ong, One Hundred Years’ History of the Chinese in Singapore (Singapore: University of Malaya, 1967), pp. 171–173Google Scholar; Outram, Sarawak Chinese, pp. 117–118; Chater, W.J., The Story of Street and Road Names in Sarawak (Kuching: Borneo Literature Bureau, 1964), pp. 12–13Google Scholar; SG, January 1, 1890.

11 See Outram, op. cit., pp. 118; SG, October 1, 1895.

12 SG, March 1, 1887.

13 SG, September 16, 1909.

14 SG, December 1, 1884.

15 SG, October 1, 1895.

16 SG, July 16, 1913.

17 Anon., “The Chinese in Borneo,” The China Review, 7/2 (July-August, 1878), p. 6.

18 Baring-Gould, Sabine and Bampfylde, Charles A., A History of Sarawak Under its Two White Rajahs (London: Sotheran, 1909), p. 33.Google Scholar

19 SG, October 10, 1876.

20 Walker, H. Wilfred, Wanderings Among South Seas Savages and in Borneo and the Philippines (London: Witherly and Co., 1909), pp. 188–189.Google Scholar

21 SG, January 9, 1871. Secret societies occasionally sprung up in the rural areas, especially among the Hakka and, later, Foochow but no important Chinese ever joined them.

22 See The Colonial Directory of the Straits Settlements Including Sarawak, Labuan, Bangkok and Saigon 1873 (Singapore: Mission Press, 1873)Google Scholar, p. L-5.

23 SG, February 17, 1873.

24 This chart was compiled principally from information in the SG. Except for Ong Ewe Hai no information is available on education but it is unlikely any of these men had more than possibly a few years of Chinese schooling in China.

25 The credit system is discussed at length in T'ien, op. cit. It should be noted that the creditor's power was not unchecked as those receiving the credit had the threat of withholding repayment to the creditor.

26 See especially Liu Chiang, “Chinese Pioneers A.D. 1900: The New Foochow Settlement of Sarawak,” Sarawak Museum Journal, 6/6 & 21 (December, 1955), pp. 536–548; Leng, Lee Yong, Population and Settlement in Sarawak (Singapore: Asia Pacific Press, 1970), pp. 106–108Google Scholar; Sixtieth Anniversary of the Sibu Foochow Community 1901–1961 (Sibu: Foochow Association, 1961)Google Scholar, text in Chinese; and Craig A. Lockard, “Charles Brooke and the Foundations of the Modern Chinese Community in Sarawak,” Sarawak Museum Journal (forthcoming).

27 See SG, October 1, 1936 and November 10, 1950; MacDonald, Malcolm, Borneo People (London: Jonathan Cape, 1956), pp. 335–344Google Scholar; Sharp, Venerable Arthur, The Wings of the Morning, (London: H.H. Greaves, 1953), Vol. II, pp. 52–53Google Scholar; Cooper, A.M., Men of Sarawak (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University, 1968), pp. 59–64Google Scholar; Sarawak Commercial Year Book 1968 (Kuching: Kuching Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, 1969), p. 9Google Scholar, text in Chinese.

28 T'ien, op. cit., p. 70.

29 SG, June 2, 1919; Chater, op. cit., p. 16.

30 SG, December 1, 1915, March 16, 1918 and April 2, 1918.

31 SG, June 16, 1910, April 1, 1913, and August 17, 1914.

32 For the Laws see Sarawak Government Gazette (hereafter SGG), July 1, 1914; SG, January 2, 1940; and Teochiu Centenary, pp. 24, 158.

33 SG, September 1, 1939.

34 See Commercial Year Book 1968, p. 9; Morais, Victor, ed.. Who's Who in Malaysia and Singapore 1967 (Kuala Lumpur: V. Morais, 1968), p. 338Google Scholar; Sylvia Brooke, Queen of the Headhunters (London: Sidgwick & Jackson), p. 115. Beng, Lock Kek, ed., A History of the Hokkien Clan Establishment: The Outline History of Asia-Pacific. (Singapore: Hokkien Association of Malaysia and Singapore, 1970), p. 137.Google Scholar

35 See Commercial Year Book 1968, p. 10.

36 On Law Miang Yang see SG, January 2, 1924; on Liew Liong Kong see SG, November 1, 1926.

37 Outram, op. cit., p. 119; SG, December 1, 1932.

38 SG, January 31, 1956. There were several other Foochow with great power but Ling was certainly one of the most powerful and influential. As such he can be considered representative of the rising Foochow elite.

39 This table’ was compiled from various sources, principally from the SG and SGG and from information obtained in-personal interviews. This is not be considered a definitive list of the fifteen most important men in the Sarawak Chinese community; such a list would be impossible to compile. The table does indicate men who were definitely among the most prominent, insofar as information is available, and is likely a fairly accurate reconstruction of the actual leadership situation. It should be noted that although Song Kheng Hai was born in China his father and grandfather were both well known merchants in Sarawak.

40 See T'ien, op. cit., pp. 45–79.

41 See SG, April 17, 1911 and June 6, 1911; SGG, June 16, 1911 and August 16, 1920.

42 SG, March 1, 1930.

43 See Tregonning, K.G., Home Port Singapore (Singapore: Oxford University, 1967), pp. 123–135.Google Scholar

44 Skinner, G. William, Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1958), p. 224.Google Scholar

45 SGG, December 16, 1921 and March 3, 1924.

46 R.G. Aikman, “Episodes in Sarawak's History,” Broadcast talks over Radio Sarawak, 1955, issued in typescript by the British Council, Kuching, Sarawak, pp. 54.

47 R. G. Aikman, “Episodes in Sarawak's History,” Broadcast talks over Radio Sarawak, 1955, issued in typescript by the British Council, Kuching, Sarawak, pp. 54.

48 Bang, Liang Kim, Sarawak, 1941–1957 (Singapore: Department of History, University of Singapore, 1964), p. 33.Google Scholar

49 See T'ien, op. cit., p. 75.

50 SG, April 2, 1917.

51 T'ien op. cit., pp. 48–49.

52 SG, December 1, 1916 and March 2, 1931; SGG, May 16, 1918.

53 SG, June 2, 1913; August 16, 1912; and February 1, 1913.

54 SG, January 16, 1918.

55 Tilman, Robert, “The Sarawak Political Scene,” Pacific Affairs, 37/4 (Winter, 1964–1965), p. 417.Google Scholar

62 For a different situation in Singapore, see Fatt, Yong Ching, “A Preliminary Study of Chinese Leadership in Singapore, 1900–1941,” Journal of Southeast Asian History, 9/2 (September, 1968), pp. 258–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 See, eg., Leigh, Michael, “Party Formation in Sarawak,” Indonesia, 9 (April, 1970), pp. 189–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lockard, Craig A., “Parties, Personalities and Crisis Politics in Sarawak,” Journal of Southeast Asian History, 8/1 (March, 1967), pp. 111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacDougall, John A., Shared Burdens: A Study of Communal Discrimination by Political Parties in Malaysia and Singapore, (Unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University, 1968), p. 113.Google Scholar

64 See Leigh, Michael, The Chinese Community of Sarawak (Singapore: Department of History, University of Singapore, 1964), pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

65 The following data on Sarawak Chinese leaders is taken primarily from Morais, ed., Who's Who in Malaysia, 1963 through 1969 editions; from personal interviews in Sarawak: and from Sarawak Commercial Year Books from 1951 to 1968. See also the profiles in Leigh op. cit. (1970), pp. 190–206.

66 Leigh op. cit. (1964), pp. 46–47.

67 For the sources of this table see footnote 65 above.