We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2011
In Sarawak under the Brooke regime, efforts to promote rice cultivation were consistently overshadowed by the channelling of capital and labour to other more profitable economic pursuits. Measures to increase domestic rice output produced few results, and the failure of Brooke rice policy was amply demonstrated when the country faced a severe rice crisis in 1919-21. However, the lessons learnt during the crisis were soon forgotten, and despite government policies designed to reduce Sarawak's dependence on imported rice, little was accomplished during the next two decades.
1 Brooke, James, A Letter from Borneo with Notices of the Country and Its Inhabitants Addressed to James Gardner, Esq. (London: L. and G. Seeley, 1842), p. 14Google Scholar.
2 For details of swamp padi cultivation methods, see Pringle, Robert, Rajahs and Rebels: The Ibans of Sarawak under Brooke Rule, 1841-1941 (London: Macmillan, 1970), pp. 26–27Google Scholar. See also Jackson, James C., Sarawak: A Geographical Survey of a Developing State (London: University of London Press, 1968), pp. 79–88Google Scholar.
3 For instance, see Sarawak Gazette (hereinafter SG), 16 Oct. 1871, n.p.; and, SG, 1 Jan. 1872, n.p.
4 For instance, see SG, 1 Dec. 1871, n.p.; and, SG, 28 Apr. 1871, n.p.
5 The single most important source and a mine of information relating to the socio-economic development of the Brooke Raj from the 1870s is the semi-official Sarawak Gazette which was first published in 1870. Although it carried official “Proclamations” and “Orders”, always had a serving Brooke officer as its Editor, and was published at public expense by the Government Printing Office, the Gazette acted more as a reviewer, or even a critic, of the Brooke administration than a government mouthpiece. The editorials, commentaries, and “Letters to the Editor”, are particularly frank in criticizing the Brooke Raj; the publication of monthly and annual administrative reports from the divisions and districts, and the various departments in the Kuching bureaucracy, are also revealing of the condition of the government and country. If there was any censorship, it was minimal. See Cotter, Conrad Patrick, “A Guide to the Sarawak Gazette, 1870-1965” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1966), pp. 1–17Google Scholar, and Pringle, Rajahs and Rebels, pp. 368-69.
6 For instance, see SG, 1 Jul. 1871, n.p.; SG, 15 Jul. 1871, n.p.; SG, 31 Aug. 1871, n.p.; SG, 16 Nov. 1871, n.p.; SG, 13 Apr. 1872, n.p.; SG, 16 Apr. 1877, p. 26; and, SG, 26 Mar. 1878, p. 19.
7 For instance, see SG, 16 Apr. 1877, p. 25.
8 Brooke, Charles, Ten Years in Sarawak (London: Tinsley BrothersGoogle Scholar, 1866; reprint, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1990), vol. 2, p. 252.
9 Government announcement of 1880 regarding the terms of its support for Chinese who intend to settle permanently in the Rejang as agriculturalists, preferably as rice farmers.
I CHARLES BROOKE, Rajah[,] make known the following terms which the Government of Sarawak hereby agrees to fulfil with any Company of Chinese who will engage to bring into the Rejang River Chinese settlers with wives and families numbering not less than Three hundred souls, who will employ themselves in gardening and farming paddy or in other cultivations —
1st - The Government will provide land sufficient for their requirements free of charge.
2nd - The Government on first starting will build them temporary houses, and make a good path to their landing place.
3rd - The Government will give them one pasu of rice per man or woman and a little salt and half the amount to every child for the first 12 months.
4th - The Government engages to keep up steam communication with Kuching and carry any necessaries for these settlers on the most reasonable terms.
5th - The Government will build a Police Station near them to protect them and assist in making themselves understood in the native language and generally look after them.
6th - In carrying out the above engagements the Government expect the said Chinese will permanently settle in the territory of Sarawak.
10 For Foochow settlers, see “Memo of Agreement between the Sarawak Government and Messrs. Nai Siong and Tek Chiong of Chop Sim Hock Chew Kang”, 27 Jul. 1900, Agreement Book II (Sarawak Museum and State Archives); and, for Cantonese immigrants, see “C. Brooke to Messrs. Chiang Shiong and Tang Kung Shook”, 5 Mar. 1901, Agreement Book II (Sarawak Museum and State Archives). For Hakka immigration to the Rejang, see SG, 2 Jan. 1902, p. 1. For Henghuas, see SG, 17 Jul. 1911, p. 136; SG, 16 Jul. 1913, p. 165; and Lockard, Craig A., “Charles Brooke and the Foundations of the Modern Chinese Community in Sarawak, 1863-1917”, Sarawak Museum Journal 19, 38-39 (1971): 98–99Google Scholar. Although the Brooke government arranged contracts with the Foochows and Cantonese, there was no similar arrangement with the Henghuas. The initial batch of 300 Henghua Methodists arrived in 1911 from Fukien Province China led by the Reverend Dr William Brewster, an American Methodist minister, and Charles may have felt that it was unnecessary to have written contracts when dealing with a fellow European and a Methodist missionary. See Chin, John M., The Sarawak Chinese (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 66-67, 70Google Scholar n. 13.
11 J.M. Hoover, “Cultivation of Rice in the Rejang”, SG, 2 Jun. 1919, p. 140.
12 Padi cultivation was not abandoned altogether despite initial difficulties, and by the end of 1912 optimistic reports were appearing about Foochows and Henghuas resuming this activity. For instance, see SG, 1 Nov. 1912, p. 245; SG, 1 Mar. 1913, p. 51; and, SG, 1 Oct. 1914, p. 228.
13 See SG, 1 Nov. 1899, p. 316; Lockard, “Charles Brooke and the Modern Chinese Community”, p. 93, and Chin, The Sarawak Chinese, pp. 59-60. See also SG, 1 Feb. 1900, p. 22.
14 See SG, 2 Jun. 1902, p. 122.
15 Ibid.
16 See SG, 2 Jan. 1918, p. 4; SG, 1 Jul. 1918, p. 160; and, SG, 16 Oct. 1918, p. 272.
17 See Kratoska, Paul H., “The British Empire and the Southeast Asian Rice Crisis of 1919-1921”, Modern Asian Studies 24, 1 (1990): 122–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 For Bintulu, see SG, 16 May 1917, p. 122; Simunjan, see SG, 2 Jan. 1918, p. 4; and, Miri, SG, 1 May 1918, p. 104.
19 For instance, see SG, 17 Jun. 1918, p. 143; and, SG, 16 Jul. 1918, pp. 176-77.
20 SG, 2 Jan. 1918, p. 5.
21 SG, 1 Jul. 1918, p. 160.
22 For instance, see SG, 16 Oct. 1918, p. 272.
23 SG, 1 Jul. 1918, p. 160.
24 SG, 1 May 1919, p. 105.
25 Kratoska, “Rice Crisis”, p. 131.
26 SG, 16 Jul. 1919, p. 189; consumption figures are for 1917 and 1918.
27 SG, 1 May 1919, p. 105.
28 SG, 16 Jan. 1920, p. 17.
29 SG, 1 May 1919, p. 105.
30 See SG, 16 Jan. 1920, p. 17; and, SG, 16 Jul. 1919, pp. 189-90.
31 SG, 1 May 1919, p. 105.
32 Ibid.
33 See SG, 16 Jul. 1919, p. 189.
34 By December 1919, it was estimated that the Treasury had spent over $70,000 in rice subsidies excluding the “special rice-allowance” afforded civil servants, which in Kuching alone “amounted to $5,000 a month”. SG, 16 Jan. 1920, p. 17.
35 SG, 1 Dec. 1919, p. 313. See also SG, 1 Jul. 1919, p. 179.
36 SG, 16 Jan. 1920, p. 24.
37 SG, 16 Nov. 1920, p. 250.
38 See SG, 16 May 1919, p. 126; SG, 1 Sep. 1919, pp. 234-35; SG, 16 Sep. 1919, pp. 246-47; SG, 16 Oct. 1919, pp. 271, 272; SG, 1 Nov. 1919, p. 287; SG, 1 Dec. 1919, p. 311; SG, 2 Feb. 1920, p. 37; SG, 16 Mar. 1920, p. 75; SG, 1 Apr. 1920, p. 85; and, SG, 2 Aug. 1920, p. 175.
39 SG, 16 Jan. 1920, p. 11.
40 See SG, 1 Aug. 1919, p. 207.
41 SG, 1 Feb. 1921, p. 2.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 SG, 1 Jul. 1921, p. 123.
45 SG, 1 Feb. 1921, p. 2.
46 SG, 3 Jan. 1922, p. 2.
47 Ibid. Dissenting voices argued that rice control had more disadvantages than benefits for the country. For the argument that control in 1921 was “unjustifiable”, see SG, 1 Sep. 1921, pp. 173-74; and, for a rebuttal of this position, see SG, 1 Oct. 1921, p. 197.
48 A Department of Agriculture was first instituted in 1915 and primarily entrusted with the responsibility of land alienation and land survey. The former function had hitherto been carried out by officers acting in the name of the “Land Office”, while the latter had been undertaken by the Public Works Department. The Director of Agriculture, then, had no control over agricultural issues which were left to the outstation administrators. Then, in 1919 the Department of Agriculture was re-named the Land and Survey Department and the Director of Agriculture became Superintendent of Lands and Surveys. The Department of Agriculture was revived in 1924 and had direct responsibilities over agricultural matters. See Porter, A. F., Land Administration in Sarawak (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 46Google Scholar; and, SG, 2 Jan. 1924, p. 2.
49 For the objectives of the Department of Agriculture, see Sarawak Administration Report (hereinafter SAR) 1929, p. 18.
50 SAR 1929, p. 22.
51 See 21st Meeting, 16 Oct. 1924, General Council 1867-1927, p. 32; and, SG, 1 Feb. 1924, pp. 56-57.
52 Goodall, G. M., Report on Swamp Padi and Other Foodstuff in First Division of the Department of Agriculture for the Years 1928-29 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1929), pp. 2, 8Google Scholar.
53 The idea of setting up rice-farming colonies was first mooted by P.E. Andresen in a letter to the Gazette, dated 26 Jun. 1871, whereby he suggested the importation “from Java or Madura, [of] say 200 families of rice cultivating people” whose skills and experience could be learned by the local people. This idea was argued out in the columns of the Gazette but no such scheme was implemented by the government at the time. See SG, 1 Jul. 1871. For the debate, see SG, 15 Jul. 1871; SG, 31 Aug. 1871; SG, 16 Oct. 1871; and, SG, 13 Apr. 1872.
54 See SAR 1929, p. 22; SG, 1 Nov. 1930, p. 279; SG, 2 Jan. 1931, p. 11; SG, 1 Apr. 1931, p. 83; SAR 1931, p. 8; SG, 1 Jan. 1932, p. 8; SG, 1 Jul. 1932, p. 126; SG, 1 Nov. 1933, p. 144; SG, 2 Jan. 1936, p. 16; and, SG, 1 Apr. 1936, p. 87.
55 Newman, C. L., Report on Padi in Sarawak 1938 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1938), pp. 21, 23Google Scholar.
56 Bean, J.S.W., Annual Report Department of Agriculture, Sarawak, for 1928 (Kuching: Government Printing Office, 1929Google Scholar), quoted in Dunsmore, J.R., “A Review of Agricultural Research in Sarawak”, Sarawak Museum Journal 16, 32-33 (Jul.-Dec. 1968): 309Google Scholar; SAR 1934, p. 4; and, SAR 1935, p. 4.
57 The Kanowit Station undertook laboratory testing of Malayan padi varieties best adapted to local conditions, while at Rantau Panjang, an area in the Igan river below Sibu, experimental cultivation of various strains of wet-padi was conducted. According to J. Cook, Sarawak Director of Agriculture from 1956 to 1963, the “first significant move towards scientific development in agriculture occurred in 1939 when a senior officer from the Malayan Department of Agriculture was seconded to Sarawak with a brief to concentrate on improving rice production”. Selected padi strains from Malaya were introduced and a series of trial cultivations was conducted throughout the country. Cook himself, then State Agricultural Officer, Brunei, assisted in implementing the project in districts in Limbang. J. Cook to A. H. M. Kirk-Greene, Oxford University Development Records Project, 3 Sep. 1983 (Personal copy); and Interview with J. Cook, Dundee, Scotland, May 1993.
58 See SAR 1936, p. 3.
59 The Agricultural Improvement Fund provided for transportation of nineteen head of buffaloes from Limbang to the Roman Catholic Mission farm at Ranan, and undertook to pay the wages of two Dusuns drovers engaged by the Mission for instructional purposes in ploughing by buffaloes. SAR 1936, p. 3. See also Edwards, Leonard and Stevens, Peter, Short Histories of the Lawas and Kanowit Districts (Kuching: Borneo Literature Bureau, 1971), p. 137Google Scholar; and Bruggemann, Father, “The History of the Catholic Church in the Rejang 1882-1966”,The Sarawak Teacher (Special History Issue) 2 (1966): 19Google Scholar. The “buffalo scheme” was initiated by Father Dunn as part of an attempt to introduce wet-padi cultivation among the Dayaks in the Rejang. Rooney, John, Khobar Gembira (The Good News): A History of the Catholic Church in East Malaysia and Brunei 1880-1976) (London: Burns & Oates, 1981), pp. 162–63Google Scholar; SG, 1 Jun. 1892, p. 100; SG, 2 Jan. 1920, p. 2; and Bruggemann, “Catholic Church in the Rejang”, p. 19.
60 SG, 16 Apr. 1918, p. 92; and, SG, 16 Jul. 1918, pp. 176-77. The padi variety, known as agit, was normally planted by the Kayans.
61 SG, 17 Jun. 1918, p. 143.
62 Goodall, Report on Swamp Padi, p. 2. A notable exception was the case of Tanjong Purun at Lundu where Malay and Sebuyau Dayaks reaped the benefits of double-cropping. See Ibid., p. 10.
63 In order to discourage the migratory lifestyle of the Dayaks in search of new land for their swidden farming, Charles sought to introduce to them new farming methods that he hoped would encourage them to settle permanently:
I wish now to show them a specimen of farming and ploughing and if they can be persuaded to take it so much the better. If we could get them to purchase buffaloes and cattle … to use them for cultivating purposes whereby they might consider their own habitations to last for generations. This would be a step in advance and a proper step.
“The Journal of Charles Brooke, September 1866-July 1868”, in Brooke, Charles, Ten Years, vol. 2, p. 359Google Scholar.
64 Swidden hill-rice cultivation as practised by the Dayaks and other indigenous people came under criticism for “wasteful” land use and low yields. For instance, see SG, 2 Jan. 1920, pp. 2-4; SG, 1 Mar. 1921, p. 30; and, SG, 1 Oct. 1926, p. 252.
65 Apart from the Muruts, the Brookes had little contact with these minorities.
66 Newman, Report on Padi, p. 25.
67 Goodall, Report on Swamp Padi, p. 8.
68 For instance, see 20th Meeting, 17 Oct. 1921, General Council 1867-1927, p. 30; 21st Meeting, 16 Oct. 1924, General Council 1867-1927, p. 32; and, 22nd Meeting, 17 Oct. 1927, General Council 1867-1927, pp. 34, 35.
69 SG, 1 May 1924, p. 157
