“A house divided against itself cannot stand” is a very well-known quote by Abraham Lincoln who was the 16th President of the United States of America. He is known primarily for his leadership during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and for signing the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order changing the legal status of slaves to “free”, which is designed to stir people up to greater unity.
Lincoln’s famous quote can be used to describe Iban political disunity in Sarawak. Although in this case, the house would refer to Iban political solidarity.
Unity has been a long-established issue for the Dayaks in general and the Iban in particular. Nevertheless, despite their differences, the Iban in the early years had used the opportunity provided by Tunku Abdul Rahman’s Malaysia proposal to unite.
In October 1962, the first two native political parties to form a political alliance were Parti Pesaka Anak Sarawak (Pesaka) and Sarawak National Party (SNAP) (The Sarawak Tribune 23 October 1962, p. 2).
The alliance was subsequently known as the Sarawak National Alliance. Its first president was from Pesaka, Temenggong Jugah Barieng, its deputy president was Pengarah Montegrai Tungan, while Penghulu Francis Umpau and Stephen Kalong Ningkan were its chairman and secretary-general respectively.
Therefore, contrary to popular belief, the Iban did attempt to unite politically even before Sarawak gained its independence in 1963.
Iban or Dayak Nationalism had emerged well before 1987, most markedly with the formation of the Sarawak National Alliance in 1962. But this alliance ended in 1966, and its failure can be attributed to the underlying regional antagonisms between different Iban groups.
Although the Iban share broadly the same language, cultural values and adat or custom, politically, they are the most divided group in Sarawak. Benedict Sandin, an Iban Scholar, in his book, The Sea Dayaks of Borneo, notes that, “the Iban originally had no term which recognised their indisputable ethnic unity”.
The word ‘Iban’, which apparently originates from the Kayan word, hivan or wanderer, was first used to describe the Iban in the late nineteenth century, while the term Sea Dayak was imposed by James Brooke, the first “White Rajah”, for administrative purposes.
In this sense, the Iban were “created” and named as a defined ethnic group during the Brooke period. However, this overall ethnic identity and demarcation encapsulated significant and continuing internal divisions.
Other scholars such as Jayum Jawan, Peter Searle and Michael Leigh have attributed traditional divisions among the Iban to the riverine or geographical factor.
The Iban, in the pre-independence years, identified themselves on the basis of their shared physical space. For example, the Iban from Undup would describe themselves as kami Undup (the people of Undup) or kami Skrang (the people of Skrang) or sidak Delok (the people from the Delok), and another frequent term used for self-identification was, and still is, kami Menoa (the people of this territory).
Menoa refers to an entire river basin, or the territory of a single longhouse. This still remains, to a large degree, true until today.
The arrival of James Brooke did not, however, heal the divisions among the Iban. On the contrary, Brooke adopted different policies in regard to the Iban from Saribas, the then Second Division, and those from Rejang, the then Third Division, and Iban from other riverine systems.
The Brooke policy concerning the Iban, or the Sea Dayaks, was based on “divide and rule” policy aimed at not only playing off Iban against other Iban but also communities in Sarawak.
Thus, divisions among the Iban after the arrival of James Brooke became more profound than before. These divisions became even more obvious during the rule of James Brooke’s successor, his nephew Charles.
Charles’ policy in regard to the Iban did not differ very much from that of his uncle except he was more aggressive in his campaigns against the Iban who refused to submit to his authority. In fact, he believed that “only Iban could be used to fight Iban or only Dayak can kill Dayak.”
This is very true in the context of Iban current political situation. Iban can be found in all of the political parties in Sarawak with an exception of PAS and Amanah.
This can be attributed to the fact that Iban leadership patterns are very flexible, in the sense that anyone can become a leader if he or she has the ability to command great support or attract a significant number of supporters and earn their respect.
However, during James Brooke’s administration, he formalised the term Tuai Rumah, as well as Penghulu, Temenggong and Pemancha (which are Brunei Malay terms for native leaders), as part of his efforts to standardise the Sarawak administrative system.
This, however, did not improve the Iban leadership structure since these terms were imposed upon them, and created for them, by an external authority.
Based on my conversation with one of the Iban leaders, he states that “whoever wanted to be a leader, they must earn it. To unite the Iban in Sarawak, you’ve got to have a leader who deserves their loyalty. So you cannot force leadership into the Iban society. You’ve got to earn your leadership. This is because they do not have an inherited structured leadership.”
In addition to that, personal prowess and prestige are two important characteristics required of any Iban leader. Any individual who aspires to be a leader has to possess these characteristics.
A leader has to prove his ability either through his personal achievements, bravery, prestige and ability to deliver on his promises before he can convince his people or gain their support and respect.
This explains why the Iban are very critical of their leaders and have a high expectation of their leaders. If the leaders failed to prove their worth, then they will either challenge the leaders to step down to give way to a better leader or change their allegiance. It is as simple as that!
I think a lot of people do not understand the nature of the Iban people. As a result, they are often labelled as untrustworthy, ungrateful, patsy, belligerent and many others.
The Iban’s belligerent nature has also influenced their approach toward politics. Described as “macho politics” by Iban leaders, it makes the Iban very transparent in their political life.
Their belligerent or confrontational behaviour and their egalitarianism, combined with their “macho” approach toward politics have to some extent resulted in their peripheral status or marginality in Sarawak and their tendency to division.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the New Sarawak Tribune.
