No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Evolution of Urban Government in Southeast Asian Cities: Kuching under the Brookes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
Extract
Despite the important role played by urban settlements in Southeast Asia, the city in general and urban society in particular have received little attention from historians. The study of town government is a particularly neglected field, especially for the period of colonialism. Although a considerable literature devoted to the political organization and institutional development of colonial rule exists, information on the situation in urban centers remains surprisingly meager. The lacuna is more marked for the indigenous peoples than for Chinese. Nonetheless enough pertinent data do exist to suggest that some form of indirect rule was widely paracticed as a mechanism for urban administration. Since most towns and cities in colonial Southeast Asia were characterized by some degree of social and cultural pluralism, indirect rule had the effect of segregating the various ethnic groups and further segmenting urban society along ethnic lines. This essay analyzes the development of urban government during the colonial period through case study of Kuching under the Brooke Raj (1841–1941). It then attempts to define some general patterns through a brief comparative analysis of several other cities in the region.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978
References
1 For the Brooke story, see Steven, Runciman, The White Rajahs: A History of Sarawak From 1841 to 1946 (Cambridge: University Press, 1960).Google Scholar
2 Jones, L. W., Sarawak: Report on the Census of Population Taken on 15th June, 1960 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 32, 325.Google Scholar
3 Templer, John C., The Private Letters of James Brooke, K.C.B., Rajah of Sarawak, 3 vols (London: Bentley, 1853), 1, 116.Google Scholar
4 The First Division included the Sarawak, Sadong, Samarahan, and Lundu River systems.
5 For The Career Of Lewis, John E. A., who served as Resident off and on between 1896 and 1909,Google Scholar see Sarawak Civil Service List 1929 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1929), pp. 90–1;Google ScholarSarawak Gazette (hereafter SG), 16 06 1909; Harrisson, Tom ‘Second to None: Our First Curator (and Others)’, Sarawak Museum Journal, 10/17–18 (1961), 17–29.Google Scholar
6 See e.g., Runciman, White Rajahs, pp. 219–20.Google Scholar
7 See e.g., SG, 1 August 1890.Google Scholar
8Ibid., 3 May 1973.
9 Charles, AnthoniJohnson, Brooke, Ten Years in Saráwak, 2 vols (London: Tinsley Bros., 1866), II, 318, 361–2;Google ScholarSabine, Baring-Gould and Charles, Bampfylde, A History of Sarawak Under its Two White Rajahs, 1839–1908 (London: Henry Sotheran, 1909), pp. 78–9;Google ScholarHenry, Keppel A., A Visit to the Indian Archipelago in H.M. Ship Meander (London: Bentley, 1853), II, 21–6.Google Scholar Not all Brooke reforms of traditional Malay political institutions attained universal popularity. Datu Patinggi Abdul Gapur, who gained that post in 1844, became alienated from the Raj and received subsequent dismissal from office in 1854 because of his opposition to policies which tended to dilute datu power.
10 Richard, Outram, ‘The Chinese’, in Tom, Harrisson (ed.), The Peoples of Sarawak (Kuching: Borneo Literature Bureau, 1959), pp. 117–19. Although the proportion of the various speech groups in the nineteenth century is not known, the Hokkiens were probably the most numerous, with Teochius and Hakkas also constituting important communities. The Cantonese and Hainanese were smaller groups while Chaoanns comprised a very small but highly influential community. Wealthy Hokkien, Teochiu and Chaoann businessmen dominated the Chinese community.Google Scholar
11 SG, 1 December 1877.
12 On the kapitan system in Kuching and Sarawak, see Outram, ‘Chinese’, p. 123; Otto, Doering C. III, ‘Government in Sarawak Under Charles Brooke’, Journal of Malaysian Branch Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 39, No. 2 (December 1966), pp. 104–5.Google Scholar
13 See e.g., SG, 1 June 1898, and 1 February 1893, for several examples.
14 Ibid., 30 June 1880.
15 See e.g., a letter from Charles Brooke to C. Daubeny, 22 March 1896, on the treatment of Chinese leaders.
16 The Ranee of Sarawak [Margaret, Brooke], My Life in Sarawak (London: Methuen & Co., 1913), pp. 179–80.Google Scholar
17 SG, 18 November 1870; 30 September 1871; 1 February 1881; 1 June 1895; 3 January 1898; 1 February 1899.
18 SG, 17 February 1873; W. J. Chater, ‘Pieces from the Brooke Past—III: The First Sarawak Chamber of Commerce, 1873’, SG, 31 July 1964.
19 Henry, Longhurst, The Borneo Story: The History of the First 100 Years of Trading in the Far East by the Borneo Company Limited (London: Newman Neame Ltd, 1956), p. 106.Google Scholar
20 The foreman could be either a Malay or a Chinese. In important cases, and on all Supreme Court cases, a European—usually a Brooke official—was added to the jury. Information on jury composition taken from various issues of the SG, 1890–1900.
21 On the Resident and his duties in the early twentieth century, see Ward, A. B., Rajah's Servant (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program, Data Paper No. 61, 1966), pp. 165–9.Google Scholar
22 Brooke gave as his reason for reviving the title of Patinggi, in disuse since the 1850s, the explanation that the title of ‘Shahbandar’ was honorable but ‘hardly commensurate with the status and dignity of the hereditary head of all Sarawak Malays’, SG Supplement, 1 May 1937.
23 Sarawak Government Gazette (hereafter SGG), 1 April 1940.
24 Quoted in SG, 17 April 1911.
25 Ibid., 16 June 1911.
26 Hakkas predominated among the Chinese outside of Kuching, particularly in the rural areas, constituting a majority of all Chinese in the First Division. But in Kuching by the 1940s, Hakkas accounted for around 20% of the Chinese population, with Hokkiens close to 40% and Teochius around 20%.
27 SG, 1 June 1911; 1 November 1923; 1 October 1931; SGG, 16 November 1911 and 16 August 1920; Sarawak Supreme Court Reports 1928–1941 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1955), esp. pp. 60–3.Google Scholar
28 See e.g., SG, 1 November 1923; 1 April 1925; 4 June 1925; SGG, 16 February 1925.
29 For Secretariat-sponsored laws for the protection of these women, see SGG, 2 January 1931. The Secretariat set up a committee of local Chinese Women to look after the interests of women and children in Kuching. See Sarawak Administration Report for 1930 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1931), p. 51.Google Scholar
30 On some activities of the Secretariat, see Sarawak Administration Report for 1929, pp. 55–7;Google ScholarSAR for 1930, p. 50;Google ScholarSAR for 1938, p. 37.Google Scholar
31 SGG, 21 January 1924; 3 March 1924; 1 May 1924; 16 November 1927; SG, 16 June 1924; 1 July 1924; 1 December 1926.
32 SG, 1 December 1921.
33 On the KSMAB, see especially ibid., 1 March 1920 and 3 January 1922.
34 1 December 1921.
35 See e.g., SGG, 1 June 1925; 16 June 1925; 1 July 1925; 1 June 1926.
36 Ibid., 1 June 1925.
37 Quoted in ibid., 3 November 1924.
38 On Kuala Lumpur see Gullick, J. M., ‘Kuala Lumpur, 1880–1895’, Journal of Malayan Branch Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 18, No. 4 (August 1955), pp. 32–8, 86–9, 96–8;Google ScholarWilfred, Blythe, The Impact of Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya: A Historical Study (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 41–2, 290–1;Google ScholarRonald, Provencher, Two Malay Worlds: Interaction in Urban and Rural Settings, University of California Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Research Monograph No. 4 (Berkeley: 1971), pp. 12, 106–7.Google Scholar
39 On Singapore see Wong, C. S., A Gallery of Chinese Kapitans (Singapore: Ministry of Culture, 1963), pp. 27–37;Google ScholarMaurice, Freedman, ‘Immigrants and Associations: Chinese in Nineteenth Century Singapore’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 3, No. 1 (October 1960), pp. 25–48;Google ScholarBlythe, , Societies, pp. 166, 233–4;Google ScholarVictor, Purcell, The Chinese in Southeast Asia (2nd edn, London: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 270–1;Google ScholarWilliam, Roff, The Origins of Malay Nationalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 32–9, 160–1;Google ScholarNorton, Ginsburg and Chester, Roberts F. Jr, Malaya (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958), pp. 452–3;Google ScholarOng, Siang Song, One Hundred Years' History of the Chinese in Singapore (London: John Murray, 1923), pp. 484–5;Google ScholarRupert, Emerson, Malaysia: A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1964), p. 299;Google ScholarFatt, Yong Ching, ‘A Preliminary Study of Chinese Leadership in Singapore, 1900–1941’, Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol. 9, No. 2 (September 1968), pp. 258–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 On Phnom Penh See Willmott, William E., The Political Structure of the Chinese Community in Cambodia (London: Athlone Press, 1970), pp. 9–70.Google Scholar
41 On the Javan cities see Donald, Willmott, The Chinese of Semarang (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960), pp. 135–68;Google ScholarGiok-Lan, Tan, The Chinese of Sukabumi: A Study in Social and Cultural Accommodation (Ithaca: Cornell University, Modern Indonesia Project, 1963), pp. 1–21;Google ScholarJames, Cobban L., ‘The City in Java: An Essay in Historical Geography’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1970), pp. 112–17;Google ScholarFurnivall, J. S., Colonial Policy and Practice (New York: New York University Press, 1956), pp. 248–51, 266, 451.Google Scholar
42 See e.g., Keppel, , Meander, II, 127–30.Google Scholar
43 On post-war developments in Kuching local government, see Craig, A. Lockard, ‘The Southeast Asian Town in Historical Perspective: A Social History of Kuching, Malaysia, 1820–1970’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1973), pp. 469–77, 555–91.Google Scholar