Talk:Raj of Sarawak

Motto
hi, Does anyone have the book - "Silvia, queen of the head hunters"? Can I have the page number with the picture of the state crest on the doorway with the Jawi transliteration of Dum Spiro Spero (written as "Haraplah, selagi bernafas"). This is just to stop people from changing the wording to "Berharaplah, Selagi Bernafas" - Thanks --Bukhrin (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom?
I'm not sure if a state ruled by a Raja should be described as a Kingdom. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I entirely concur with this - the title is wrong unless anyone can produce any substantial evidence for Sarawak ever being referred to as a Kingdom rather than a Raj, or just Sarawak, (before Wikipedia came along, anyway)? I very much doubt that he Brookes would ever have referred to themselves as Kings (some tabloid newspapers may have referred to Vyner's daughters as Princesses, and Charles, privately, wooed Margaret to be 'his Queen', but I don't think that's enough). In terms of British Court etiquette, the Rajahs were pretty low down, and probably typically addressed as Sir, or perhaps with His Highness the Rajah... (In fact, the only letter I have seen from Buckingham Palace to the 2nd Rajah addressed him as 'My dear Brooke' - not very regal) Battang (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To those who persistenly deny this was a kingdom, please read the book published by a British Consul to Brunei, Sir Spenser St. John which published in 1863 where he himself referring Sarawak as a kingdom with prosperity, good government, security of life and property, western civilization and the Rajah who is a friend of the Dayak. Another book published by the British War Office (a recognised department of the British Government) in 1942 referring that Sarawak was a kingdom with absolute monarchy. So how can both of the two sources can said this entity to the extent of being kingdom if not it is indeed was really established as a kingdom. Furthermore, the title of Rajah is clearly explained in its article that the title is solely used/given for a monarch. I have seen such similar attempt to deny Brunei as an "empire" before in Talk:Bruneian Empire, but as been answered by an IP editor there, there is an oldest book published in 1868 that clearly stating that it was an empire with only different spelling of Brunei > Bruni. So just because some spelling used by the oldest records are different from the modern spelling used in our current life today, doesn't mean their existence can be deny. I took another example of this oath stone erected in North Borneo prior to the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, see clearly the Malay language words being used in the sentence in the picture below, for example perlambaga'an (constitution), ugama (religion), rayat (citizen), sabalek (e.g. while or in other meaning), ta'at (e.g. loyalty, obedient) and kapada (to). If you studying and learning modern Malay language today, these kind of words have been standardised to perlembagaan, agama, rakyat, sebalik, taat and kepada despite the meaning are still the same as the original sentence.  Night Lantern halo? 03:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please don't give as a source a mid-19th century British consul. The questions to ask is: did the Brooke rajahs called their state a kingdom? The answer is no. Do modern historians refer to Sarawak under the Brooke rajahs as a kingdom? The answer is no. While one finds 57 occurrences of the word "kingdom" in this Wikipedia article, one will not find a single occurrence of that word in well-known historian Runciman's history of Sarawak under the Brooke rajahs (including 33 pages of notes). To me, that's a serious problem. The Wikipedia rule is that the most common usage in a given language must prevail in titles of articles, etc. "Kingdom of Sarawak" is neither the most common usage...or even an uncommon one. It's a fantasy kingdom!--Lubiesque (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see from the above that I'm not the only one dismayed by the use of the word "kingdom". BTW, soon after the accession of King Edward VII, it was determined that, at Court, Rajah James Brooke would be referred to as "Rajah of Sarawak" and ranked immediately after the Heads of the Indian Native States (Runciman p. 200). No Sarawak king or kingdom in sight.--Lubiesque (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually Spenser St John has a whole chapter on the Kingdom of BRUNEI... but, ruled by a Sultan, it is surely better referred to as a Sultanate? Similarly, Sarawak under the Brookes was customarily referred to as a Raj (or Rajahate - https://archive.org/details/cu31924078409673 ). Sultans and Rajahs being somewhat exotic to a British readership, Spenser (certainly not knighted in 1863) was doubtless trying to convey the meaning of Rajah and Sultan with the more familiar English term of King... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battang (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually Spenser St John has a whole chapter on the Kingdom of BRUNEI... Lol.....I noticed earlier today that Wikipedia has an article on the "Bruneian Empire". I'm not sure many historians refer to the "Bruneian Empire" and call the rather modest possessions of the sultans of Brunei in those days as an "empire". But there you go: some contributors fantasize a lot on Wikipedia. But inventing kingdoms and empires is no way to improve the reliability of the encyclopedia.--Lubiesque (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is the answer, then so does with the State of Sarawak as you recently did towards the article with almost every of the search results from the keywords showing only the modern state of Sarawak in Malaysia, not the past entity under the Rajah. Instead the keywords with Brooke Raj/Raj of Sarawak or Sarawak Raj  showing more positive results. Regarding the Sultanate of Brunei, personally I have no problems if they want rename with the title, but some folks for surely always trying to redirecting or connecting it to the modern country of Brunei (see the page moving history by yourself with one user redirecting it to the Brunei article while an IP changing the redirect to the Bruneian Empire).  Night Lantern halo?  14:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I had pointed out in the changes that I made but that you reverted, Sarawak under the Brookes was generally simply called "Sarawak", which is why I replaced dozens (!!!) of phony "the kingdom" by "Sarawak" (but you reverted those as well since you seem to worship the word "kingdom"). It was also called State of Sarawak (the way Indian princely states ruled by rajah, sultans, etc. were called "states") or Raj (Runciman refers to the "Chief Secretary of the Raj", and he has a map showing the "Approximate frontiers of the Raj of Sarawak", p. 188). "Kingdom" is pure invention. A title for this article could be "Sarawak under the Brooke rajahs". In any case, the word kingdom should be avoided as it is a fake and misleads the reader.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason for the revert still does not justifying me being a monarchist fan or any other nonsense that currently appear in your mind even if I am in the position that Sarawak under Brooke is indeed an administration based on a monarchy system. Like any other administrators told us before when you want to make a drastic change on any article name, you need to gain a consensus in the article talkpage first. This procedure however are not followed closely by you as seen with your recent change when even the file names that supposedly been changed through moving request are simply done through text modification that making the article seems to have been vandalised.  Night Lantern halo? 15:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I intend to request a page move soon and see if there is a consensus. The new page title could be "Sarawak under the Brooke Rajahs". Maybe there are other possible titles. At any rate, just about any new name would be better that the fanciful "Kingdom of Sarawak", which looks like a cool title, but is unfortunately totally ignored by historians.--Lubiesque (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Raj of Sarawak" would seem the most appropriate title to me. Sarawak under the Brookes can certainly be described as a monarchy, its just that the monarch was a Rajah, not a Sultan, and not formally styled as a King (not least in deference, I suspect, to the Queen of the United Kingdom etc, of whose realm the Rajah was a subject). Incidentally, the 1868 'book' referred to above is an article in a monthly magazine called Temple Bar (later copied as a chapter in a book, too): it does use the word kingdom, but I would again suggest that this was an informal usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battang (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed since the administration is under the Rajahs itself, similar like how British India are called British Raj. The moving procedure can be read here.  Night Lantern halo? 00:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be good to see various sources brought to this talkpage, and a move request started after that. I agree that it seems appropriate to consider a move based on what's been discussed above. CMD (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * *sigh* To Mr. Lubiesque, rather than you continue making personal attack towards other editor and just changing some of the lead texts, why don't you start gain consensus right down below for entire renaming? It is a shame that a so-called avid fan of Steven Runciman works preferring more towards "personal attack and calling that as an invention by an editor obsessed with the word kingdom". Seriously sir, this kind of attitude deserved no respect from other editor.  Night Lantern halo? 01:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one more thing for sure. You keep implying that it is like I am the one who "originally" invent the word "kingdom" in this article and seems to accuse me of being a fan of "fantasy kingdom". Let me tell you once and for all that this article was expanded by me only since 29 July 2017. Listen!! Since 2017!!! While according to the article history, the "kingdom" title has been used since 2007!! For God's sake since 2007!? Why not even a single person disputing the fact for almost 10 years (+2 more years without any action)? The recent one only began in 2016 but the reply only come the following month after my modification in 2017!? In fact I've seen user like Battang are quite active putting an eye to the article but still not even a single modification been taken towards the article on the "kingdom" issues. Only when someone already willing to spend his "wasted time" to expanding this article with more details in that year, there comes you changing every of the "kingdom" sentences without proper procedure until the article seems to have been vandalised by irresponsible readers. The funny thing is when I began to undoing your recent edit, asking the reason and telling you to follow moving procedure, there you go with personal attack rather than continue to starting a moving discussion. In fact my last reply to you here as seen above was in the month of April 2019, now is already June!! What are you doing for two months without initiating any moving procedure to gain consensus? *Sigh* Seeing your talkpage with several warnings including the warning for edit war in British Raj article making me no surprised with your attitude! Remember! "What goes around comes around" so don't expect someone could treat you nicely with this kind of attitude! 走好!!  Night Lantern halo? 04:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Sarawak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150401045406/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/sarawak.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/sarawak.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Raj of Sarawak's status as a State and its opening description / definition.
The current opening sentence is a bit unclear and I think it can be improved.

I suspect that this topic will be controversial, there are so many conflicting secondary and tertiary sources, I'd like to build consensus around the following paragraph before editing the main page and filling in the citations from appropriate secondary sources:

The Raj of Sarawak was initially a tributary state under the Sultanate of Brunei, located in the northwestern part of the island of Borneo. The Raj was founded when James Brooke was granted political authority to rule the government on 24 September 1841. The original concession of territory from Brunei was defined as extending from Tanjung Datu in the west, extending eastwards along the coastline to include all the rivers up to the mouth of the Samarrahan river. It gained de facto independence from Brunei after the capture of Brunei 8 July 1846 and gained de jure independence via an agreement with Sultan Mumin in 1853. [insert map of this concession]

Through a series of further concessions the James Brooke expanded the boundaries of the Raj eastward at the expense of Brunei. Several major rebellions occurred against his rule, causing him to be plagued by debt incurred in countering the rebellions, and the sluggish economic situation at the time. His nephew, Charles Brooke, succeeded James and normalised the situation by improving the economy, reducing government debts and establishing public infrastructure. In 1888, the Raj acquired protectorate status from the British Government whilst avoiding annexation. By 1905 the Raj had expanded to its largest size, and this area now forms the Malaysian state of Sarawak.

To gear up economic growth, the second Rajah encouraged the migration of Chinese workers from China and Singapore to work in the agricultural fields. With proper economic planning and stability, Sarawak prospered and emerged as one of the world's major producers of black pepper, in addition to oil and the introduction of rubber plantations.

He was succeeded by his son Charles Vyner Brooke but World War II and the arrival of Japanese forces ultimately brought an end to the Raj and the Protectorate administration, with the territory placed under a military administration on the Japanese capitulation in 1945, and ceded to Britain as its last acquisition as Crown Colony in 1946, in contravention to the Atlantic Charter

It's a super dense definition in the opening paragraph so let's discuss by referring to points individually.


 * point 1 - The Raj = the name this group's consensus seems to have chosen - Kingdom has also been used as well as Rajahnate and Rajahrate. But I think Raj is also acceptable.  yes/no?


 * point 2 - tributary state - 2 facts to unpack - I chose "tributary" since it's the broadest and simplest description - the subjects of the state of Sarawak paid taxes to the governor who then passed on a tribute to the Sultan - but it's a state since it's being ruled indirectly and was semi-autonomous. Brunei had recently reasserted political control - ie. founding of Kuching - which implies it had greater independence before that (or as Walker asserts part of Sambas) yes/no?


 * point 3 - why the orginal opening sentence implying an independent state from 1841 isn't accurate and why I chose - "under the Sultante of Brunei" - now we start entering into one of the hottest issues - did James see Sarawak as being under the ultimate authority of Brunei?  yes/no?

a) 1842 agreement only gave James the right to rule.

b) 1843 agreement gave James the right for his heir to rule after him - provided they paid a top-up fee, Britain rejected taking on Sarawak on a colony specifically because the treaty did not cede the land to James Brooke. James replied that the Bruneians only 'nominally held' the rivers and that a cession would be easy to acquire.... but he didn't get one.

c) 1845 Brooke tried to buy out the rights to rule for his lifetime instead of annual payments for $7000. He also described the status of Sarawak to Henry Wise as: "I hold Sarawak under the Crown of Borneo… I do not desire to hold Sarawak on any other terms ; for I cannot sport an independent monarchy, and the Rajahs of Borneo are a convenient shield."


 * point 4 - located in the northwestern part of the island of Borneo - yes/no?


 * point 5 - was founded -- the trouble is we need to make sure people know that the new Brooke government was created and not imply there was no government beforehand. He was just a new boss - and he gave the government a new name - yes/no?


 * point 6 - "political authority" - the phrase side steps the controversy over whether he was a Governor or a Rajah - it's used by the Brooke Trust - and I think it's a clever way to not get stuck - yes/no?


 * point 7 - 24 September 1841 - yes/no?


 * point 8 - geographical description of Sarawak proper: "The original concession of territory from Brunei was defined as extending from Tanjung Datu in the west, extending eastwards along the coastline to include all the rivers up to the mouth of the Samarrahan river."  I don't think First Division should be mentioned - the territory defined above is only part of First Division and it causes confusion when people think of it this way when we reach the history of Serib Sahib and Sadong. - yes/no?


 * point 9 - The Raj gained de facto independence from Brunei after the capture of Brunei 8 July 1846 - this one gives the turning point and alludes to the 1846 agreement by using the phrase de facto - If you don't know, there is an 1846 agreement that effectively ceded all control to James over Sarawak - the problem is... the Sultan didn't sign it - it was only signed by Mumin and Muda Mohammed - so clearly it wouldn't stand up in court (de jure) - it's de facto because when James stopped paying his annual tributes (for Sarawak proper) from this point forward the Sultan did not take Sarawak back - yes/no?


 * point 10 - gained de jure independence by Sultan Mumin in 1853. - Brooke permanently fixed the questionable legal status of independent of Brunei when he returned to Sarawak in 1853 and got the 1853 treaty which confirmed the terms of the 1846 treaty and is perfectly legal - it doesn't ask for annual payments (for Sarawak proper) and states that the Sultan may not interfere in the affairs of Sarawak - (not interfering is not exactly the same as a cession, but it's been widely accepted that this is essentially a cession) - yes/no?


 * point 11 - US Recognition of independence 1850 - technically the president wrote the letter (ie. made the decision to recognise in 1849) that treated James as an independent sovereign - but Joseph Balestier delivered it in 1850 and James also popularised his legal reasoning in 1850 - so maybe it should stay as 1850. yes/no?

MatSallehSesat (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * point 12 - British recognition - this i think should change to 1863 - The Foreign Office asked James for his 'exequatur' in 1863. Then Ricketts was nominated as consul 1 or 4 Jan 1864 - and finally opens the consulate in Kuching in 1864. yes/no?
 * Hi Matt, per WP:LEAD, the lead should not include original editing; instead, it should summarise what is in the article body. Could you see if these details and nuances are present in the article body, and what sources might support them there? CMD (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * hehe Matt... Malaysians will get a kick out of that :)
 * Thanks for the advice. i'll break down the old and why I want to change it - and where my suggested version isn't supported... yet...
 * Original: "The Raj of Sarawak, also State of Sarawak,"
 * On careful reading I see where the 'State of Sarawak' comes from - it's referring to the legal language in the protectorate agreement, it's legitimately in the article at the end but is super confusing in the first sentence, especially since Sarawak is now a State of Malaysia, and that's not what it means at all. I don't think 'State of Sarawak' is necessary.  The group seems to want the Raj to be 1841-1946... so I don't see why the first sentence would essentially be Raj of Sarawak 1841-1946 and Protected Independent State 1888-1946.  It seems overly burdensome and confusing and doesn't really add useful information you need that early to understand what the Raj was.  Erasing that would improve clarity in my opinion.
 * point 2
 * Original: "was initially independent" - this doesn't make any sense without a specific date - and as you see above I completely disagree with the 1841 date. I wish I knew which secondary source uses the term concession for Sarawak proper because it's a great definition for what Brooke got. The word is used for Brooke/Wise at Brooketon,  Dent Overbeck/Sabah, and Alexander Hare in Graham Irwin's book, but not for Brooke at Sarawak. :(  Anyone know who used this?  I'd like to read them - they came up with the right word.
 * Suggestion: as for my "tributary state" I want to put in - There was a really badly worded quote from Wesseling in an earlier version of the article I removed that implied Brooke paid £500 in 1841 to get the governorship - I guess I should just go back into that section and put in the proper amount and the proper date with a source which makes it obvious it's an annual tribute. That would clear the "tributary state" and point 3,5,6,7
 * Point 8 - geographic description of Sarawak proper - this really does need to go into the article - is a clear map and caption good enough? Or does it need to be 'text' in the body?
 * The original jumps straight to Point 11, and 12 - international recognition of independence.
 * I think there's no choice but to expand the article and describe Sarawak Proper's independence, (my points 9,10) otherwise it looks like America and Britain are just ignoring and over-riding Brunei's perfectly legitimate and legal claims over Sarawak instead of the messy situation that it was.
 * Point 12 - As for my 1864 quibble, the quote in the article is referring to the public nomination of Ricketts instead of the back office approvals 'asking for exequatur' that happened in 1863. Maybe I'm being too nitpicky - and I should let it slide. The quote in the body is technically correct. I think exequatur was also publicly asked for on his day of arrival.
 * So anyone else care to chip in?
 * To make my suggested lead work.
 * It looks like I need to add 1 sentence about the Sultan confirming the concession in 1842 for X amount, for X territory.
 * and a couple of sentences about independence from Brunei - before it enters into the rebels part. MatSallehSesat (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On a wider point, the lead shouldn't just be a shorter History section, although since the current one almost is the suggestions are not a step backwards. Due to this, it seems very useful to keep the geographic descriptions in, including the early First Division, I don't see how that adds complication.Regarding interpretations of various treaties and letters and so on, and associating specific legal terms with them such as recognition and sovereignty should have a secondary source, we shouldn't be interpreting it ourselves. CMD (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No original research - got it :)
 * I only brought up the 46 and 53 treaties because it shouldn't jump over them - it would be misleading. The other alternative is to elminate the mentions of recognition of independence altogether.
 * I'm pretty sure both Irwin and Tarling have analysed and clearly stated the independence implications of the 1846, 1853 treaties. I'll go hunt for the best citations.  I'll stick to secondary sources.
 * Hopefully I stumble across a secondary source that can straighten out a major misconception of the 1853 treaty, that everyone just seems to mindlessly repeat. I can't be the only one who has noticed it.
 * not going to post it without secondary sources but... if you're curious
 * The 1853 treaty doesn't mention any rivers at all. Rejang actually went over to James in 1851 under Omar Ali Saifuddin II not 1853 under Mumin. I don't know why historians don't bother to read the treaties and they just repeat the printing error from Henry Bulwer's printed summary from 1875. It erroneously used an 1853 date on the 1855 treaty and Bulwer seems to have missed the 1851 treaty altogether.
 * 1851 Treaty - https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-807821950/view
 * 1853 Treaty - https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-808098693/view
 * 1855 Treaty - https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-807822470/view
 * The F.O. Printer / editing error - https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-809296536/view - check out the bottom right corner - Bulwer had the correct date - and then it got "corrected" to 1853. And historians have been eating the fruit of a poisonous tree ever since because this report was printed up and it's a hell of a lot easier to read than handwriting. MatSallehSesat (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if nothing turns up, you could instead of writing about it on Wikipedia submit this to a history journal! CMD (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Protectorate vs Proctected State
an anonymous user has just changed all protectorate mentions to protected state - there is a difference in the definition of the two - but I think the actual status of protectorates and protected states was purposely left ambiguous at the time

Hopefully the user can provide citations for Sarawak's status? both beginning in 1888 and what it was in 1946 before the handover.

There seems to be a pattern of starting as a protected state and evolving into a protectorate without official declarations.

I suspect Sarawak was turned into a Protectorate in 1928 when Charles Vyner was granted a GCMCG - but I haven't looked into it thoroughly or know secondary sources that back it up.

This source from the College of Arms is answering enquiries about the formation of the Order of the Star of Sarawak - and he refers to Sarawak as a Protectorate.

http://archive.brooketrust.org/DA/showObject.php?id=MPS83.18.?

And Bertram writing to Vyner mentions in passing that their new channel of communication is the Colonial Office. So did Sarawak move from Protected State under the Foreign Office to a Protectorate under the Colonial Office in 1928?

As far as I can tell G.C.M.C.G.s come with strings attached, it would explain how and why Vyner got his award.

Charles got his GCMCG when he signed the 1888 protected state agreement.

MatSallehSesat (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just an update: I went through the Foreign Office archives 1888 to look for conclusive evidence either way since many authors also use the term Protectorate.
 * Casually Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo were all referred to as protectorates in multiple places at multiple times, so there are a lots of references that calls them protectorates. Even the initial intention of the F.O was to make them Protectorates, but they backed off making them full protectorates in order to avoid conflict with the Dutch, so they classified them as "independent Protected States"
 * https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-811158502/view MatSallehSesat (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Brooketon 1888 - 1935
Jeremy Kusumatmadja made an interesting point by adding that Sarawak occupied part of Brunei. From 1888-1935.

It had nothing to do with the Brunei gov falling apart, as is his claim in the edit summary.

It would have been nice if he had given a reference...

Charles bought the concession of Brooketon & Muarra coal mines - as well as bought back the coal rights for all of Brunei from Cowie.

But I don't think we can call this Sarawak territory - one of the restrictions to the concession was that Charles Brooke was not allowed to raise the Sarawak flag. So I'm not sure if you could actually call it Sarawak territory if he didn't have full sovereign rights.

The territory was ceded back to Brunei in 1935 by Charles Vyner.

Here's a letter from Charles explaining the whole history: http://archive.brooketrust.org/DA/showObject.php?id=CBLB_8_241 MatSallehSesat (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Jeremy Kusumatmadja can you provide a citation or source? Charles Brooke bought the lease to Brooketon 7 Sep 1888, and Brunei became a protectorate on 17 Sep 1888. In 1906 the British told Charles Brooke that he could not raise the Sarawak flag at Brooketon. To me this suggests that Sarawak never had sovereign rights in Brooketon.  So I don't think this qualifies.  Are you referencing something else?MatSallehSesat (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)