Enjoy your holidays everyone!


In between the lines

History under the microscope ~ The Borneo Post

WESTERN historical narratives on the colonised, focusing specifically on the Dayak Ibans of Sarawak under the Brooke regime, are being scrutinised in a book by an academic from UiTM Sarawak in Kota Samarahan.

Associate Prof Dr Bromeley Philip is shedding some light on how history was written to privilege only the so-called ‘white supremacy’ vis-à-vis the ‘savage’ native inhabitants.

Entitled Historical narratives of the colonised: The Noble Savage of Sarawak, one chapter of the book (still in press by Palgrave Macmillan) focuses on how western historians highlighted only the positive image of the so-called ‘paternal’ White Rajahs who were portrayed as bringing peace to otherwise chaotic Sarawak due to strong resistance from the Iban ‘rebels’ (western label), notably Rentap.

Rentap was depicted as a rebel, befitting the savage image, accorded by the imperialistic west to any other humans besides Europeans.

“The Ibans were probably fortunate because James Brooke saw the Ibans not just as savages but as noble savages – an opinion shared by Charles Brooke too,” Bromeley quipped.

Based on his research, he said: “In fact, James Brooke did write in his diary that the Ibans were “superior in stature, and better made than any Dayaks I have seen.” And I may also quote what Charles Brookes wrote of the Ibans – “strong in body, a mass of muscle, quick in intelligence and perception.” (source: Crisswell, 1978, Rajah Charles Brooke).

He pointed out that the history of Sarawak during the Brooke regime was written only from the eyes of westerners, adding: “We are in the periphery of history, never central in their historical account. It is their history.”

Bromeley said the natives did not really have their own history – it was always the Brooke’s.

Rentap was recorded in their history only to accentuate their supremacy over the native inhabitants and never was Rentap featured from his or his own people’s perspective, he added.

“During the Brooke’s era, we the local inhabitants were just like ‘Friday’ (a native character) in Robinson Crusoe’s story. What matters were things the Rajah did at that material time.

“Crusoe even gave his native friend the name Friday because he found him on Friday! That was rather convenient but unfortunately disrespectful. Crusoe did not bother to know what Friday’s actual name was. Friday was only mentioned in the story book and he did not have any voice – so much so that what he thought did not matter. Crusoe’s story was just analogical of the Ibans’ story under the Brookes as featured by western writers,” Bromeley said.

English commoner

James Brooke was an English commoner who, like most imperialistic European adventurers then, was looking for opportunities in the East and he saw them in Sarawak. He was also known as the first White Rajah who obtained governorship of Sarawak from the Sultan of Brunei and eventually proclaimed himself Rajah of Sarawak.

According to Bromeley, based on his academic inquiry into a book, written by Robert Pringle (revised 2007), the Ibans were not made aware of the existence of any meaningful central government.

Quoting from Pringle (p59), he said: “Their (Ibans’) lack of respect for the Sultanate was quite obvious when the new European overlords arrived. Charles Brooke related a grim tale of some Brunei nobles en route to the Krian. Encountering some Iban marauders on the coast, the pengiran in command displayed the Sultan’s commission, carefully folded in yellow satin, hoping to dissuade them from attack. But the Ibans replied “we don’t know about things like that” (nadai nemu utai bakanya), and proceeded to take the heads of the entire party.”

Bromeley asked: “If the Ibans did not recognise the Brunei’s sovereignty which ceded Sarawak to James Brooke, how could they even recognise the Brooke family as the Rajahs?”

He said based on Brunei’s Selesiah, the Malacca ‘grant’ of the Sultan of Johore only included Kalaka, Saribas, Sadong, Samarahan and Sarawak (Kuching now) but there was no mention of the Batang Lupar river system, the first river in the now Second Division to be settled by Iban migrants from the Kapuas.

According to him, its omission from the Malacca grant, as remembered in Brunei tradition, may indicate the warlike Ibans were soon living along Batang Lupar and Batang Skrang in sufficient numbers to discourage Brunei interest.

Bromeley also said Batang Lupar was what Pringle declared as ‘the Iban country’ but this was not mentioned in the slightest amount of information available concerning the 16th and 17th century Sultanate.

It was along Batang Skrang that Rentap put up a strong resistance against the Rajahs because Rentap was just protecting his territory from a foreign encroachment.

Indigenous viewpoint

Rentap was pictured as a recalcitrant by western writers – Baring-Gould and Bampfylde. Villain as he might have been portrayed by western writers, Rentap’s struggle to ward off alien encroachment of his native land is clearly very commendable from the indigenous perspective.

Faced with strong resistance from Rentap, the Rajah’s expeditions met with failure twice. While the Rajah’s defeats were not highlighted in published accounts of Sarawak, Rentap’s retreat further into the interior (taken to be Rentap’s eventual defeat), was, however, highlighted.

According to Baring-Gould and Bampfylde (1989: p184), “Rentap will not be noticed again. Broken and deserted by all, he retired to the Entabai branch of the Kanowit where he died some years later.”

The writers picture Rentap’s retreat (as viewed by the Rajahs)
as being tragic – that he was broken and deserted. However, there was
no evidence to corroborate that Rentap actually suffered a tragic defeat.

As much as western writers tried to show how successful and effective Brooke’s Rule was against the Iban warrior-chief, what came to light was the fact that Rentap was a force to be reckoned with indeed.

Despite his lack of modern arms and ammunition and small band of followers in contrast to the Rajah’s force, he defended his fortress at Bukit Sadok against two separate attacks by the Rajah. It took three expeditions (June 1857, July 1858, and August 1861) by Charles Brooke, the Tuan Muda, to finally dislodge Rentap from his fortress. Rentap however, evaded capture.

“It was Rentap who actually showed bravery and resilience against the formidable White Rajah,” Bromeley noted.
Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2011/11/06/history-under-the-microscope/#ixzz1gYnBxHD4


The Bidayuh of Serian: Sambat group

One of the 15 subgroups under the Bukar-Sadong Bidayuh of Serian, Samarahan is the Sambat group. The Sambats are one of the smaller groups among the Bidayuh.

Like the rest, they came from Tembawang Tampun, and passed through Tembawang Rutoi (the main original Bidayuh settlement for all Bidayuh Bukar-Sadong between the border of Sarawak-Kalimantan), settling at Rawan Mountain. Later on they moved to Tembawang Sambat, between Bukit Bukeng and Mapu Kejabu in the 1600s. They began calling themselves the Sambat Bidayuh. In 1820s, they abandoned the settlement and began migrating to find new ground.

Bunan Mawang – abandoned in 1964.

Terbat Mawang – Named after Sg. Terbat.

Tong Nibong – Named after Lubok Nibong.

Bunan Gega – Gega means bamboo bridge. Moved out after their conversion to Roman Catholicism because the pagan elders of Bunan Mawang didn’t want to offend their gods.

Bunan Punok – Moved due to the Indonesian Confrontation. The last group from Bunan Mawang.

Mapu Mawang – Legend has it that their ancestors came out of a hole in the ground. The hole still can be seen in the village.

Mapu Kejabu – Named after Sg. Kejabu. Moved out after their conversion to Roman Catholicism because the pagan elders of Bunan Mawang didn’t want to offend their gods.

The Urakng Banuak’a (Maloh) of Kalimantan Barat


Maloh is a term widely known in Sarawak and in much of Kalimantan Barat. They are known as the Urakng Banuak’a (people of the land), divided into a few groups;

~ Tamanbaloh who live in Batang Embaloh

~ Tamankapuas who live in Putussibau and Medala

~ Kalis who live by the Kalis River

~ Dayak Lau’-Palin of Manday River.

Tamanbaloh, Tamankapuas, Kalis and Dayak Lau’ Palin are commonly used names in Kalimantan Barat, but the general term Maloh has been used by the Dayaks of Sarawak to describe these people.

Those “Maloh” who travel far all the way to Sekadau and cannot return back (or decide not) to their village of origin are called Tamansesat (lost Taman people), or Tamansekado. However, they accept the term “Maloh” from outsiders. Today, the Maloh can be found in some longhouses in Sarawak, especially Lubok Antu, Katibas River and Kapit.

The Maloh are good craftsman and traders. They became trading middlemen between Malays and other Dayaks. At one time, “Maloh” blacksmiths frequently crossed over into Sarawak from the “Maloh” heartland in the Upper Kapuas. They would usually stay in Iban longhouses, making silver and copper adornments and also beaded clothes made from small cowrie shells. In return,they received food and accommodation while working, and final payment in hulled rice or woven pua by the Iban. With the rice and pua, they exchange these items with the Malay Sultanate for gongs and other important items. Some Malohs settled down in the Iban and Kayan longhouses in Sarawak.

Linguistically, the Maloh language falls under the Benuaka category or Tamanic, which is very different from their Iban, Kantuq and Kayan neighbours.

The “Maloh also has a stratified society. They are divided into the Samagat (nobility), mostly the headman or medical/ritual expert, the Pabiring (middle class) traders, the Banua (commoners) and Pangkam (slave). Maloh villages are called Banua and may consist of single longhouse called Sau.