Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:07:02.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Disturbances in the Tutong and Belait Districts of Brunei (1899–1901)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

A.V.M. Horton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper comprises an enquiry into the unrest in the Belait and Tutong districts of Brunei at the turn of the twentieth century. After outlining the course of the disturbances, I shall examine their causes, explain why the recrudescence of violence (after a period of calm) early in 1901 led to a departure in British policy towards the Sultanate, and finally, show how the factors which had given rise to the original disaffection were removed, and lasting peace restored, under a reformed administration introduced at the beginning of 1906. First, however, some background information is necessary.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 93 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1987

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

The author is indebted to the British Government (SSRC/ERSC) for the financial support which enabled this research to be undertaken. Secondly, I am grateful to Dr D. K. Bassett for his comments and suggestions. Of course, sole responsibility for the contents of this paper rests with the author.

1 CO 144/73 (19517) Consul A.L. Keyser (1856–1924) to (High Commissioner) Sir Charles Mitchell (d. 1899), 7 June 1899, paragraph 7.

2 FO 12/126 p. 147 M.S.H. McArthur (1872–1934), “Notes on a Visit to the Rivers Belait and Tutong”, 14 July 1904, paragraph 7.

3 CO 531/3 (34002) W. H. Lee-Warner (b. 1880) to (High Commissioner) Sir Arthur Young (1854–1938), No. 254, 17 May 1911 (enclosing the Brunei Census 1911).

4 McArthur, “Notes”, paragraph 8.

5 Ibid., paragraphs 10–11.

6 FO 12/71 p. 64 Consul P. Leys (1851–1922) to FO, No. 6 (Pol), 6 February 1886, paragraph 8; also in CO 144/62 (9841). Three or four “Dayaks” were killed and 6–8 wounded.

7 FO 12/104 p. 58ff Keyser to FO, No. 23 (Pol), 21 June 1899; also in CO 144/73 (23569).

8 Ibid. NB: Mr Keyser reported that the procedure was as follows: “A man is sent by the Sultan or pangeran with a quantity of cotton goods and brassware. The people concerned are informed that, by the Sultan's orders, they are to buy. The penyuru, a man who holds the Sultan's duly sealed authority, then supplies each family with various goods, whether they desire them or not, informing them that they must pay certain prices. The price demanded is usually three times the value of the articles. The people are then ordered to go to the jungle to collect produce and the penyuru states that he will return in a month's time. At the appointed date, those who can pay do so; those who cannot have property confiscated. In cases where there is no property of value, children are demanded as payment. When a child is an orphan, he is always taken as the property of the Sultan for alleged debts of the father.”

9 The Governor of the Straits Settlements was, by virtue of his office, also British High Commissioner for Brunei.

10 CO 144/75 (20879) Consul G. Hewett (1859–1932) to (High Commissioner) Sir Frank Swettenham (1850–1946), No. 28, 29 March 1901, paragraph 2.

11 FO 12/114 p. 133 Hewett to Swettenham, No. 36 (confidential), 19 April 1901, paragraph 2; also in CO 144/75 (24405).

12 CO 144/75 (33046) Hewett to Swettenham, No. 39 (confidential), 23 April 1901, paragraph 1.

13 Loc. cit., Hewett to Swettenham, No. 49 (confidential), 10 June 1901, paragraphs 3–4.

14 Ibid., paragraph 6.

15 Mr Hewett heard reports that five hundred Belait people had joined the attack on Tutong, but he thought the number was probably an exaggeration. Given previous reports that both Belait and Tutong were “practically independent” and that any attempt by pengirans to reassert their authority would have been met by force, this circumstance is remarkable. Five hundred persons would have represented virtually the entire adult population of Belait.

16 CO 144/75 (41469) Hewett to FO, No. 12 (confidential), 25 September 1901, paragraphs 1. CO 144/76 (20448) Hewett to Swettenham, No. 13 (confidential), 28 March 1902 (enclosed in FO to CO, 24 May 1902).

17 Sarawak Gazette, 2 January 1902, p. 14.

18 FO 12/114 p. 200 Swettenham to FO, tel., 20 November 1901; also in CO 144/75 (41469).

19 Limbang was the only district for which cession money was not paid, the Brunei authorities refusing to acknowledge the occupation of the ‘river’ by Sarawak.

20 Such as Sarawak Proper (gold and antimony), Muka (sago) and Limbang (whence the people of the capital derived their subsistence).

21 Gullick, J.M., Indigenous Political Systems of Western Malaya (London: Athlone Press, 1953), p. 98Google Scholar.

22 FO 12/114 p. 98 Hewett to Swettenham, No. 31, 10 April 1901, paragraph 5; also in CO 144/75 (24405).

23 FO 12/114 p. 68 Hewett to Swettenham, 7 March 1901, paragraph 4; also in CO 144/75 (15738).

24 As note 22 (above), paragraph 9.

25 FO 572/39 M.S.H. McArthur, “Report on Brunei in 1904”, paragraph 64.

26 FO 12/69 Leys to Salisbury, No. 13, 3 April 1886, paragraph 5; also in CO 144/62 (9841).

27 McArthur, “Notes”, paragraph 9.

28 Ibid., paragraph 14.

29 Pringle, R., Rajahs and Rebels: The Ibans of Sarawak Under Brooke Rule (London: Macmillan, 1970), p. 171Google Scholar.

30 McArthur, “Notes”, paragraph 14.

31 Ibid., paragraph 9.

32 FO 12/114 p. 106 Swettenham to Hewett, No. 6 (Borneo, confidential), 3 May 1901, paragraph 5; also in CO 144/75 (24405).

33 As note 11 (above), paragraph 8.

34 CO 144/75 (24405) Swettenham to FO, No. 8 (confidential), 30 May 1901, paragraph 2.

35 As note 11 (above), paragraph 3.

36 CO 144/75 (33046) Swettenham to Hewett, No. 79, 30 April 1901, paragraph 2.

37 McArthur, “Report”, paragraph 43.

38 As note 22 (above), paragraph 9.

39 As note 12 (above), paragraph 4.

40 Sarawak Gazette, 1 October 1902, p. 203.

41 McArthur, “Report”, paragraph 39.

42 FO 12/104 p. 58ff, Keyser to FO, No. 23 (Pol), 21 June 1899; also in CO 144/73 (23569). And FO 12/114 p. 34 Hewett to Sir Alexander Swettenham, No. 14, 28 January 1901, paragraph 3; also in CO 144/75 (12266).

43 Sarawak Gazette, 2 January 1900, p. 19; and Ward, A.B., Rajah's Servant (Ithaca, 1966), p. 78Google Scholar.

44 Black, I.D., A Gambling Style of Government: The Establishment of Chartered Company Rule in Sabah, 1878–1915 (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 105Google Scholar.

45 McArthur, “Report”, paragraph 80.

46 FO 12/114 p. 164 Sir Frank Swettenham to FO, No. 16 (confidential), 14 October 1901, paragraph 3; also in CO 144/75 (41469).

47 CO 144/75 (12121) FO to CO, 3 April 1901.

48 FO 12/115 p. 36 Hewett to FO, No. 7 (confidential), 2 July 1901, paragraph 7; also in CO 144/75 (33046).

49 CO 144/75 (33046) minute by C. P. Lucas, 21 September 1901.

50 FO 12/116 p. 117 Rajah to FO, 7 October 1901; also in CO 144/75 (37127).

51 McArthur, “Report”, paragraph 112.

52 Ibid., paragraph 135.

53 Ibid., paragraph 103.

54 CO 824/1 Brunei Annual Report 1911, p. 4.

55 CO 824/1 Brunei Annual Report 1907, p. 5.

56 CO 824/1 Brunei Annual Report 1910, p. 6.

57 Ibid., p. 16.

58 CO 824/1 Brunei Annual Report 1911, p. 6.

59 Ibid.

60 CO 824/1 Brunei Annual Report 1919, p. 5.

61 Datuk R.N. Turner SPDK CMG, letter to the author, 24 February 1983 (quoted by courtesy of Datuk Turner).