This interview with Dato Dr Peter Mooney was conducted by Bridget Welsh, transcribed by Lam Pak Nian (Student Assistant, Centre for Asian Legal Studies, National University of Singapore), and edited by Andrew Harding and Bridget Welsh.
Bridget Welsh (hereafter BW): Andrew Harding, James Chin and I are working on a book reflecting on federalism in Malaysia, and we wanted to talk to people who were there at the time and have some observations to make. Where were you in 1963?
Peter Mooney (hereafter PM): Well, I have to say, to begin with, that I was not in Sarawak at the time. I left Sarawak in 1960. Sarawak joined the federation in 1963. So all I can tell you about is based on the impressions I have from when I was in the Government of Sarawak.
BW: What were the motivations, do you think, or the perceptions of the people of Sarawak at that time in the 1960s in terms of looking at the issue of federation?
PM: I think they didn’t have any idea about it at all. I have some awareness of this. I was in the top level of the Government of Sarawak as the Acting Attorney General. This position was the number two in the government after the Chief Secretary. The executive was the Supreme Council consisting of three official members, the Chief Secretary, the Attorney General and the Financial Secretary with local members: in my time, I recollect that the leading Malay, the leading Iban and a prominent Chinese were members.
In the early 1960s colonialism was out of fashion. This was the view of the United Nations after World War II. Colonialism was unpopular amongst its members. Sabah and Sarawak served no interest to the economy or politics of Britain. So Britain was quite anxious to get rid of them and relieve themselves of these relics of colonialism. What they originally had in mind was that Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak would combine as one.
At that time I was, amongst other functions, the editor of the monthly Sarawak Gazette and wrote the editorials. I drafted an editorial on this. When the Sultan of Brunei refused to enter a federation, I had to leave the editorial page blank as it was too late to pull the story. The Sultan of Brunei was quite adamant on not joining a federation.
What concerned Britain was whether they would be irresponsible if they did not resolve this matter. It was thought there could be complications. If Britain just walked away from this, it would be irresponsible. They were not sure what was going to happen and expected complications. And indeed complications did happen. Indonesia’s President Sukarno immediately decided to try to get hold of these states and, as you know, there was an attempt to invade Sarawak which was repelled with the aid of the British army. Quite a lot of fighting took place, although the scope of the fighting is not generally known. The British Army was brought in that time to protect the border between Sarawak and Indonesia. It is a very long border. Quite a lot of fighting went on in many areas. So that was the situation. If we just went away and left Sarawak, Indonesia would move in.
So attention turned to Malaya. There never had been an inclination in Sarawak towards Malaya. It was totally a foreign country. Sarawak had nothing to do with Malaya at all and had no interest in it. Singapore was our nearest neighbour and the only place with which we had regular contact by sea and our first destination when an air service was started.
As I spoke Iban, I was asked by the Governor towards the end of my Sarawak service to address people in the longhouses of the interior during my travels, on the forthcoming departure of the British. We all knew this was going to happen. Peoples of the interior, the majority being Iban, and dwelling in longhouses very seldom had visitors from outside, especially key government officers from Kuching. I had to tell them of the forthcoming British departure. I said ‘You’re going to have to govern yourselves soon, you will have to think about this, to prepare yourself.’
The interesting thing was, they had no concept of a nation. They were quite happy under the British administration. It was not oppressive in the least. It was professional. There was no corruption The colonial administration looked after their interests. There were, of course, varied degrees of efficiency in the administration, depending on the particular officers in question. The people’s interests were however well protected. Most of those I spoke to were reluctant to accept change. My speech on Britain’s coming departure meant nothing to them. there was no real sense that they were all one, were all Iban. Their reference point was the neighbouring longhouse, which they saw as different from themselves.
Being in charge, running and administering Sarawak — it was something beyond their conception. So the question of independence then, in most of the speeches I gave, was of little interest to them. They did not understand it.
Under the Rajahs, the Brookes had given priority to the Malays. The Malays formed the subordinate ranks of the civil service. They were referred to as native officers. No other race was involved in administration. Some Malays were not very happy about the third Rajah ceding Sarawak to the British Crown. That’s why the second governor, Duncan Stewart, was assassinated by Malays. The Iban were the largest group however. So the idea when Sarawak became independent was that the Governor would be Malay or Iban and the Chief Minister would be Iban or Malay, vice-versa. You would have the two groups in government and power would be shared. This never happened except for a short period at the beginning
I can speak only of the circumstances before I left Sarawak in 1960. The governments of Britain and Malaya set up a commission headed by Lord Cobbold to enquire and report on the views of Sabah and Sarawak on their future in the light of the departure of the colonial governments. The commission travelled widely in Sarawak, in the later part of 1962 and invited meetings and written submissions on the subject and submitted a careful report. There were, as one would expect, differences in the views expressed. Everyone they met paid tribute to the impartiality of the colonial government but their views as to the future expressed fears and hopes. The conclusion of the commission, in short, was that a union with Malaya was acceptable. The British government was happy to hear this. The British were in favour of Federation. They had faced a similar situation with their colonies in Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Tanganyika and formed the Central African Federation (which did not survive long). It was probably thought that a similar solution was suitable for the Bornean territories. I believe that they were of the view that Singapore should be part of Malaya because it was really more or less one country before, although there were different governors. But the problem was communism, which was in the 1950s influential in Singapore and it seemed that it would even prevail. Thanks to the heroic efforts of Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues, that problem was overcome — it was an admirable achievement. There was also a little bit of communism in Sarawak. I mention the Chinese youngsters. who regarded China as The Promised Land, going to China in my memoir A Servant of Sarawak.
Malaya had, of course to agree to a federation. The population of Singapore was small. so the number of votes it would have as a member of the federation was would be small. Voting for a federal government in the member states would be determined not by population alone but could also be weighted according to area. Sabah and Sarawak being very considerably larger than Singapore — Sarawak alone is as large as peninsular Malaya — the two states would completely out vote Singapore. So Malaya did not have to fear whatever turn politics in Singapore might take.
BW: I want to go back a little bit. You mentioned about Brunei not coming in. What was Sarawak’s reaction to that?
PM: Well, the idea of Federation did not originate in Sarawak. It was the British government’s idea. It may have had the Central African Federation in mind as a precedent. It may well have thought that this would be suitable future for its Borneo territories. Brunei was not a colony but a protectorate. There was no governor but a Resident whose function was to advise the Sultan. The Sultan was not entirely amenable to the advice of the Resident and indicated his differences with him on occasion in various delightful Malay ways. He put down his foot on the federation proposal. The protectorate came to an end on the departure of the British government from Sabah and Sarawak. So far as I know Sarawak was not greatly interested in Brunei, one way or another.
BW: I want to go back to the other issue you mentioned of communism. You seem to suggest that a main driver at the time was security and the Cold War framework, particularly with rising communism and tensions, particularly with Indonesia. Were there other interests involved that were pushing for Federation?
PM: I don’t think so. We had no reason to fear Indonesia then. That only happened after independence came. Then Sukarno acted. Most of the vast island of Borneo, Kalimantan, was part of Indonesia so one can understand why he might have acted as he did.
BW: So is it really about consultation and territory in that area?
PM: Yes.
BW: So in terms of the communist threat, you mentioned in your wonderful memoir A Servant of Sarawak, how real was that from the perspective of where you were in Sarawak?
PM: I don’t think the communist threat was a force in Sarawak. We had these idealistic Chinese youngsters. Some were being fed ideas of British oppression. ‘Under the heels of the British’ and all that. They had no basis. The government was impartial and the Chinese were treated the same as everyone else. There may have been a few teachers, I suppose, who were spreading these ideas, but they were few and far between; I saw no attempt at promoting communism at all. There were no acts of hostility against the colonial government. When Lee Kuan Yew came to Sibu, the leading Hakka society organised a celebration dinner for him and invited the Resident and myself to attend, which we did. I believe the colonial administration was not seen as personally benefiting from their function. The British government did not receive any benefit at all. Salaries of the British colonial servants were not extravagant. I saw no active signs of hostility in the seven years I was there.
BW: So, in a sense, what you are describing is that there was really no interest in Sarawak in wanting to join the Federation?
PM: None, during my time. They didn’t have any idea or conception of Federation.
BW: And you also seem to be suggesting that the majority of people in the context of Sarawak really didn’t understand what this was about.
PM: I think that’s absolutely right. And they had no concept of ruling themselves because they had never had that experience. They were ruled by the Brookes and a small group of Malays.
BW: Was there any opposition in Sarawak to the Federation?
PM: I can’t speak to that because I wasn’t there at the time.
BW: What about the 20 Points Agreement? What are your thoughts on this agreement?
PM: I really cannot say anything about that very much. I noticed when I came to Malaya that some people I met had a deprecatory attitude towards people from Sarawak. They did not know Sarawak and those who regarded Sarawakians as inferior did so from ignorance. I heard on visits to Sarawak that the some civil servants from Malaya posted to Sarawak seemed to be there to rule them, not to serve them. The Nine Principles set out by the Third Rajah in the Constitution he gave to Sarawak stated that “public servants shall ever remember that they are but the servants of the people on whose goodwill and co-operation they are entirely dependent”. Of course, in those in official positions in many countries there are those with officious attitudes.
BW: Do you think that this patronising perspective has had an impact on the Sarawak-Malaya/Peninsula relationship?
PM: Tun Rahman Yaacob, of course, who became Chief Minister for a long time and was succeeded by his nephew Taib Mahmud, — now also a Tun — enjoyed the favour of the federal government and faithfully supported it. However Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, the former Finance Minister in the federal government proposed some time ago that the terms of the relationship between the Bornean governments and the federal government should be reviewed. I believe that the question is as to whether the original terms have in practice been followed or maintained. I do not know if any action has been taken on Tengku’s proposal.
BW: Where are the areas, do you think that Sarawak has benefited from the Federation and areas that may be not be so beneficial?
PM: Well, I think there were areas where Sarawak, which the Brookes and the colonial government, as stated in the Nine Principles and the colonial constitution. regarded as heritage of the people, have been taken advantage of. The timber concessions that have been given away are of concern. Some native lands, which I mentioned, in my memoir, which never had been held by legal title but by customary law have been taken away from the communities. I foresaw something like that happening early on with the richness of Sarawak’s resources. Native peoples have lost out. Some lost their land. The huge dam is an example. The entrepreneur who got that concession got it no doubt for a consideration. The first thing he did was to cut down the trees of the great forest that was 30 million years old and really belonged to the people of Sarawak. The huge logs were taken to the saw mills for, no doubt, a considerable personal profit before the building of the dam even began. And the people in the area that they had lived in for generations were removed from the area. This process strongly affected the way of life of the people. Their whole culture was based on the farm and the land that they had and the rice that was the foundation of it. The only land that they knew was given away.
They lost it and were provided with modern longhouses which were specially built. but they broke the tie of the people to the land of their ancestors although they may have been given some land as replacement. When I went up into the interior as a State guest during the Golden Jubilee it was quite an experience. I saw the modern longhouses. I spoke to people there. I could see the loss of morale. Of course, the facilities are superior in a few ways, but it wasn’t their culture. And some had taken to drink. They lost the farms they had before. Their morale was affected. In my travels in the interior when I had to stay the night in longhouses they always had a celebration and after our meal there would be dancing individually by agile men and graceful girls. This was part of their culture and you could see their spirit in it. On these recent visits they danced as they all had done before. But the dance that had a meaning for them then was not the same. They were just exhibits, Now it was just an act, going through the motions. It was like the dancing at mock Malay weddings at various restaurants. I believe you see a similar practice in Bali nowadays when the dances are for tourists and no longer part of the spiritual life of the people The dancing has lost its roots.
There has been advancement in prominent administrative positions. There are people, local people, who have come up in the civil service and occupied prominent positions like Residents, District officers, Judges and professionals. This is a good thing. And, of course, they have elections to Council Negri, , the local legislative assembly, as is proper.
BW: There is a perception that Sarawak has maintained more autonomy, especially vis-à-vis a comparison with Sabah? What do you think is, do you think this is a true perception? How do you see it?
PM: Sarawak has greater autonomy? I think it’s true that Sarawak has had more autonomy. This is due to the leadership of Taib, and Rahman Yaacob to begin with. Both were very intelligent and capable people. Both of these men were my cadets. Rahman had been a Native Officer. He was outstanding, very efficient. We gave him a scholarship to study law at Southampton University. He came back as a lawyer and he joined my department. He moved into politics and was very able.
Taib applied to me for a scholarship originally. He came to see me from his school, St Joseph’s, and said he wanted to be a lawyer. He asked whether we could we give him a scholarship. I interrogated him. He was very bright, obviously. He was very keen on law. I thought he was suitable and we gave a Supreme Council scholarship to him. He went off to Melbourne University. In Australia he married Laila, his first wife, a delightful person. She was a warm person, loved Sarawak and was a very good influence on him. And when he came back again, he and Laila stayed with me in Kuala Lumpur. He thought he would join the Bar. I had to break the news to him that he would not be able to join the Bar because Australian degrees were not recognised at that stage. He would have had to start at the bottom and get a degree which was recognised. He wasn’t prepared to do that.
He came to see that politics was his thing, and he got into politics in Kuala Lumpur. Tun Razak got to meet him and recognised that he was very bright and an asset. He brought him in as a Federal Minister, Education, if I remember correctly, and then Information. I met him privately during his period in Kuala Lumpur. He was intelligent and capable. We met often as he was the president of MIRO, the inter-religious organisation. In that capacity I met him from time to time. As a Catholic with many local friends, Malay and others, I was much interested in fostering understanding amongst the different religious groups.
Taib was completely open-minded. You could say anything to him. He would listen and respond. He said, “I can say this to you, Peter, but some of the issues cannot be discussed publicly.” He was tolerant of different views. For religious issues, he was very helpful in many ways.
I think he has done quite a lot, in his way, for Sarawak. Kuching has been transformed. The riverside which used to be lined with godowns and trading boats has all been cleared away. You can have a meal amongst the many stalls and stroll along the riverside esplanade in the coolness of the night. It is very pleasant. There are also boulevards lined with trees leading out of Kuching. Taib had imagination, energy and initiative. And, whatever else may be said, he applied his talents for the benefit of Sarawak.
On my last visit to Kuching when I raised with him the issue of forest policy, he gave me a round-up on forest reserves. He really had his finger on the pulse and his eye everything. He was very knowledgeable. He presented me with a book on ecology. He set up nine reserved forests. I said to him, you know, people say that there is a rape of the primeval forest here. He assured me he was within the United Nations guidelines and he presented me with this book. I didn’t know what it was about. It was all wrapped up in some special paper. When I got back to Kuala Lumpur I opened it. The book had wonderful illustrations in colour and each chapter was written by an ecologist on Sarawak’s flora and fauna. Top class writing. Very interesting indeed. He has taken an interest in a variety of issues, including ecology. I knew many of these areas that were made reserves before they were made into reserves. It is very good that they are now being preserved in pristine state for future generations He has made many achievements. So I think there was a good side to Taib.
BW: Let’s go back to the issue of Federation. You mentioned Singapore earlier. It was because of Singapore that they brought in Sabah and Sarawak. But Singapore left. How did that change the dynamics of the Federation?
PM: How did that change the dynamics? Well, I mean it was mostly the influence of the Singapore Government, particularly Lee Kuan Yew, who was the head of the Singapore Government then, on the Federal Malaya Government.
BW: Do you think it changed for Sarawak? Did it strengthen Sarawak’s position? Did it weaken it? Was it the status quo?
PM: This is purely a personal opinion. If Singapore had remained in the Federation it might have been beneficial to Sarawak. The real power was with the Federal government. Taib knew that, so knew how to deal with it. It was mutually beneficial.
BW: Do you think, looking back fifty years now, do you think that it was in Sarawak’s interests to join the Federation?
PM: What was the alternative? If they didn‘t join it, what then? Soekarno’s attempted invasion is an indication of what was likely to happen if Sarawak stood alone. Sarawak was quite small and had little choice. The population at that stage was just a million, you know
BW: But they had resources?
PM: No, I don’t think that they saw the wealth then. Brunei had the wealth. It discovered oil from the 1930s. The Sultan of Brunei in 1912 offered to give away Brunei to the British Crown in return for an annuity. And the British Government said what do we want with Brunei? It was an error in judgement. Nothing had been discovered then. Sarawak had taken over most of Brunei in the past, bit by bit. Brunei remained independent. Brunei is now immensely wealthy of course. Sarawak was never really wealthy. It never had any money to contribute to the British treasury. It just paid its way, that’s all. Of course it had timber and there have been considerable changes since independence. It is very different now from what it was in my time.
BW: But it has a lot of money now.
PM: It is in a better position now, but are the people of Sarawak? Some are. There is a professional and middle class which hardly existed before. I do not know about the people of the interior. Natural resources are being exploited, particularly in the timber industry. As has happened in so many countries, big business and wealthy companies are of influence. In USA, they seem to be the rulers. I don’t think Sarawak is in that situation and hope that it never will be.
BW: I’m curious, how do you think being part of Malaysia has changed Sarawak?
PM: Well, I’m sad to say that, the changes are not altogether positive. You know, there was a sense of egalitarianism in Sarawak and racism was not entrenched. The ideas of religious differences influencing social conduct had never existed in Sarawak. There was total harmony of races. Nobody talked about race or religion. Religion was considered a personal thing, to believe and think as you like.
When you go to Singapore, you’re immediately aware of the different atmosphere. You know, it’s not Malaysia. It is very different. It’s the same when you go to Sarawak. The people there are mixed ethnically. I can see that sort of thing even within families. Religion does not affect personal relationships. That is still there in Sarawak. As far as race and religion is concerned, it is always a pleasure to visit Sarawak. There is real friendship, you know. People remember you. When I go back I still receive a friendly greeting and hospitality. They have heard of me from their parents and grandparents. It’s very nice to think that spirit still prevails.
BW: Do you think it’s changing?
PM: I’m not really in a position to speak to make a full assessment. There are some changes. The Malay influence is perhaps more pervasive. Ibans as the majority race and the other races do not seem so far to have the influence which their numbers would justify. I have not visited in the last few years. And my knowledge is limited. The initial idea on independence was that Malays and Ibans would share power. This does not seem to have happened except briefly at the very beginning. Of course the indigenous peoples have never been united and exerted their power at the ballot box.
BW: Many people feel that the Iban have been displaced or fragmented. There are high levels of poverty in Sarawak compared to the rest of Malaysia. This is the case in both in Sabah and Sarawak. What’s your impression about the distribution of the benefits for Sarawakians?
PM: I don’t know what attention the government has given to that. I’ve gone into the interior when I was a State guest many years after independence and what I saw there was depressing. Conditions had essentially remained the same. But they were remote places that I visited. Downriver in the Rejang, the Baram and other great rivers, where there are district headquarters, I do not know to what extent it would be the same as it used to be.
BW: You played an important role in the legal arena. How did the law change in Sarawak, particularly after the Malayan Constitution became the law?
PM: Well, I took part in various early trials. I was legal counsel there. In those days, I played an advisory role as well as being advocate in Court matters affecting the government. In fact the first Sarawakian judge was George Seah who became a Federal Judge at a later stage. The Chief Minister had contacted me. He said the Federal Government was intending to nominate somebody, a Sarawakian, as judge, and asked if I could suggest anyone. I suggested George. George was not a very prominent lawyer but I felt he would make a good judge. He was a decent, upright person. In fact he proved to be a very good judge as was shown when he was elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and then to the Federal Court.
The first case I had before him was on behalf of Rahman, then Chief Minister. It involved defamation. We won. We were bound to win because the grounds were solid. But the damages which were given for the defamation were somewhat less than expected, less than the authorities which I presented to George would indicate. George reduced them a little. I think it was a demonstration of his independence.
In those days, the law was straight-forward. There were only a few constitutional cases. There was a constitutional case involving an electoral petition. That went well and followed the law. I don’t know about the quality of the judges in Sarawak today and the quality of the justice that is being administered.
BW: So you don’t really have a sense of the current legal arena in Sarawak?
PM: I don’t have a real sense. I do know that Sarawak has limited powers. The current Court of Appeal hears appeals from the Borneo states as well as from the peninsula. There are concerns about some of its decisions.
BW: What do you think are the contemporary challenges for Sarawak?
PM: Contemporary challenges? I think people want a greater feel of autonomy. Taib is no longer Chief Minister but is Governor. The Chief Minister is Adenan Satem, a relation of his. It remains to be seen whether much is going to change with the apparent change in political leadership. However he has recently taken a firm stand against racism and the religious issues which are giving rise to division in the Peninsula and Sabah. That is promising.
One must hope. I am an optimist. There is an old Latin saying Nil Desperandum: Never despair. All things will come right one day. But what Sarawak really needs, I think, is an awakening, the consciousness of nationhood amongst the indigenous peoples. They are the majority people and need to ask why they are not ruling Sarawak?
BW: Do you think that that will come? What do you think are the issues that might trigger that?
PM: Well, again, self-interest comes into play. What are needed are ministers whose objective is service to the people. It is up to the people to identify and elect such ministers. Courage is needed and a lot of ability and enormous perseverance.
BW: So you are optimistic you have got people like that in Sarawak?
PM: Well, the Ibans I knew and respected very much were courageous, individualistic, egalitarian and very independent in all sorts of ways. Never flattering or obsequious, never saying anything just to please you. Polite, yes. Always polite, always courteous. But they had their own ideas, nothing’s changed that.
BW: Where do you think Sarawak is going to be in the next fifty years?
PM: I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t answer that and will be just be giving a wild guess. It is purely speculative. I think Malaysia is going to change. There was a tremendous crowd for Karpal Singh’s funeral. The news gets around much more than in the past. Young people are going onto the internet and getting connected. And you’ve got people like Ambiga and Anwar (although probably not for much longer) who offer different views. My Malay MP is concerned for the people and is very good. There are more outspoken people, including Malays. The Sultanah of Johore has been making excellent speeches on diversity and quoting from the Koran on this theme. More people have studied in universities and although local universities suffer from government control, there are more differing views than before.
I think there are changes in the air. I think things are improving and I am optimistic that things will continue to improve in Malaysia. Improvement in Malaya will result in improvement in Sarawak.
BW: Do you think the changes have to come from the peninsula, for Sarawak, or can they come from Sarawak itself?
PM: : I think that there probably has to be change in the peninsula. I don’t think Sarawak can change the present situation of control from Kuala Lumpur but it surely can influence it.