Brunei History Challenged
Tom McLaughlin
Our history of Sarawak began by introducing Hyang Gi in ~925 AD in Santubong and followed the royal family of Santubong until its demise in 1512. It was all oral history taken from a dukun who lived across the river in Kampong Bintawa in Kuching. We faithfully recorded his story and published a book.
We scoured the Kampongs across the river for any manuscripts, and again a month ago (September 2022) when they moved over to Darul Hannah to see if any had shown up during the move. Again there was nothing. Most people had told us the Brunei people, recognized by their accents, came through in the 70s or 80s and bought them all. I could understand why these destitute people would sell them. We flew to Brunei, twice, and again found nothing.
Last week (October 10, 2022) I was doing research on the year 1408 when both Brunei and the Santubong royal families claimed to have gone to China. This was not possible. It had to be one or the other. I was severely disadvantaged because I could not read ancient Chinese. I had to rely on other people’s translations. Furthermore, I even put some of my Chinese characters on Facebook seeking help. Very little came.
My wife and I were very suspicious about the history as presented by the Brunei government. We felt the Bruneians had stolen the history from Santubong and incorporated it as their own. But, we had no proof.
I began to investigate the Chinese translations of what happened and tentatively concluded it was the Santubong Sultan who had made the journey. However, proof still eluded me.
While randomly searching the net, I came across a paper by Dr Johannes Kurz written in 2020 called “The Creation of a Shared Past”. I tried to obtain the whole paper, but I had to purchase it through an obscure German website. The cost was 20 Euros. I wasn’t going to pay. If I did, I would have a fortune tied up in papers. I wrote to Dr Kurz and requested a copy. Then, yesterday, a reply came with the paper attached. This was a surprise because most of the historians working at the Dar es salaam Brunei University do not even bother to answer my queries. Well, that’s not entirely true. Dr Druce does send me copies of his papers on request.
I was stunned as I began reading. Dr Kurz had confirmed everything Suriani and I had been thinking. Brunei’s history was a lie. Dr Kurz, I figured, had worked at the University of Brunei, and he published his account after he had left, not wanting to disrupt his income flow. I just happened to bump into his paper.
Dr Kurz begins his essay by stating the history of two nation-states, Brunei and China was fabricated to further the political agendas of both nations. He states that China wanted a foothold in the area, while Brunei wanted future development.
Dr Kurz continues his essay with the burial chamber of the Sultan in 1408. A Sultan had died on a visit to China. The essay refers to the Encyclopaedia of the Song and Ming, but they say nothing about Brunei. He continues that the publication of “Historical Sketch of North Kalimantan” by Pan Xianreng. In this essay, Pan refers to “A Sketch of the History of Brunei by Hughes-Hallet where Boni was Brunei. This idea was repeated by Shen Juecheng describing the person in the tomb as being from Boni. The idea that Boni was Brunei was to be continued by scholars through the 2000s. Poli being Boni and Boni being Brunei was a fabrication for Pan Xianreng and his resources.
As the paper continued, the author stated that the myth of Boni meaning Brunei was established as a historical fact when it is not because it benefited China and Brunei.
The paper continues until the entire fabric of Brunei’s history is undermined. It states most of the history of Brunei is based on the Chinese language that scholars have little or no, familiarity with and are not qualified to process the information.
So, where does this leave me in my efforts to propose the Santubong Kingdom? First, the visit of the Sultan to China in 1408 was the Santubong Sultan. Secondly, the idea of only one Sultan in Sarawak must now be questioned as the Brunei evidence has been challenged. Thirdly, a person of international repute has supported most of our independent findings.
We are now well on our way to showing there was a viable and established Kingdom in Sarawak and not Brunei.
Saya akan kirimkan naskah percuma jika anda memberi saya e mail anda dan email saya ialah sa********@gm***.com. I doubt the Germans speak Malay.
BorneoHistory.com
Sa********@gm***.com
Tom McLaughlin
