Kingdom of Sarawak remains protectorate post WWII

What if Charles Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak, did not cede the Kingdom of Sarawak to the British Colonial Office after WWII? His nephew and heir, Anthony Brooke, was against cession of the colony and the move was extremely unpopular with the locals and the majority of the native members of the Council Negri, the Parliament of Sarawak. The Brooke family is a curious oddity in quickly adopting the trappings of Malay monarchy. What would be the future of the Kingdom of Sarawak? Good, bad, somewhere in between?

I have a small understanding that the Brookes are viewed somewhat positively though there may be members here who are far more knowledgeable than I.
 
What if Charles Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak, did not cede the Kingdom of Sarawak to the British Colonial Office after WWII? His nephew and heir, Anthony Brooke, was against cession of the colony and the move was extremely unpopular with the locals and the majority of the native members of the Council Negri, the Parliament of Sarawak. The Brooke family is a curious oddity in quickly adopting the trappings of Malay monarchy. What would be the future of the Kingdom of Sarawak? Good, bad, somewhere in between?

I have a small understanding that the Brookes are viewed somewhat positively though there may be members here who are far more knowledgeable than I.

I reckon it would be largely positive. I can see another, bigger Singapore but with a more liberal culture and more vibrant as well.
 
I reckon it would be largely positive. I can see another, bigger Singapore but with a more liberal culture and more vibrant as well.

Ah, that's good. Any possibility for one of Anthony Brooke's sons or grandsons marrying a local woman from Sarawak in order to get good PR?
 
I think the main reason why Brooke relinquished control was because Sarawak had been devastated by the War and subsequent occupation and Brooke didn't have the resources to rebuild it. Had he retained control in some form then its possible that Sarawak and Sabah may be independent nations today.
 
I think the main reason why Brooke relinquished control was because Sarawak had been devastated by the War and subsequent occupation and Brooke didn't have the resources to rebuild it. Had he retained control in some form then its possible that Sarawak and Sabah may be independent nations today.

Wouldn't Sukarno (or Suharto) have invaded and annexed it? It seems like the kind of thing he would do....
 
Wouldn't Sukarno (or Suharto) have invaded and annexed it? It seems like the kind of thing he would do....

Possibly. It depends on how well Sarawak's military forces would be managed. I suspect if there's such a confrontation that Brunei, Sabah and Malaya would come to Sarawak's assistance. No?
 
Possibly. It depends on how well Sarawak's military forces would be managed. I suspect if there's such a confrontation that Brunei, Sabah and Malaya would come to Sarawak's assistance. No?

Maybe, but there is the issue of co-ordination between the groups. In OTL, Sukarno tried something like this, but because he invaded Malaysia, he was faced with a united front against him. In an ATL where Malaysia is divided, Indonesia can play the different states off one another. For example, Indonesia might promise Brunei or Sabah a significant piece of Sarawak in exchange for an alliance or even just neutrality. Even if it doesn't work, Sarawak will still be suspicious of its allies' intentions.
 
An independent Sarawak changes regional politics and may result in the Konfrontasi being avoided altogether. In any case, I doubt North Borneo (it's not Sabah yet) will be made independent. I also doubt that Sarawak would become another Singapore - that's a hard trick to pull.
 
I agree, with benevolent British assistance, why not?

Sarawak isn't comparable to Singapore at all. It's the size of Pennsylvania and has a small, thinly spread population and a rugged landscape marked by tropical rain forests, whereas Singapore is a tiny, densely populated city state. Certainly with good governance it could be better off than OTL (Sarawak and Sabah keep only a small portion of their oil and gas royalties) but Singapore it isn't.
 
I agree, with benevolent British assistance, why not?

It would probably be for the best interests of the British Empire to have the local states, including Sarawak be strong enough to hold off a possible invasion by the Indonesians right across the border. Sarawak can try becoming a tax haven, inviting foreign companies to set up shop in the capital of Kuching with foreign investment helping to raise up the standard of living in the city as well as the entire country.
 
Sarawak isn't comparable to Singapore at all. It's the size of Pennsylvania and has a small, thinly spread population and a rugged landscape marked by tropical rain forests, whereas Singapore is a tiny, densely populated city state. Certainly with good governance it could be better off than OTL (Sarawak and Sabah keep only a small portion of their oil and gas royalties) but Singapore it isn't.

Quoted for truth. Sarawak isn't going to be overly different from OTL.

[rant]I love the way people seem to think that with a white man in charge instead of the silly Asiatics everything will go just fine.[/rant]

Back on topic- This is doable but I think everyone's overlooking the prospect of Sarawak actually joining Malaysia. The House of Brooke could be ranked among the other Royal Houses of Malaysia. Sarawak going it alone would be a liability for Britain (which doesn't really want to have responsibilities in the Far East) which would presumably be obliged to protect it against Indonesian insurgency. As part of Malaysia it would presumably operate in the same way as Sabah and Sarawak do IOTL- they've got certain different privileges and so forth from the Peninsular states. Sarawak and Sabah have their own immigration controls- people from Peninsular Malaysia need immigration permits to settle there, just as foreigners might. If this remains the case ITTL Sarawak could join the Federation of Malaysia.
 
Top