Pure Hypothetical WI: Filipino Sabah and Sarawak after WW2

So after WW2, Charles Vyner Brooke ceded Sarawak to the British Crown and many Sarawakians did not like decision and an anti-cession movement existed until the 1950s.

EDIT: What if Charles Vyner Brook decidesto cede Sarawak to the Philippines instead to Britain. He could not rebuilt Sarawak and the Christian population of Sarawak could fare better under the Philippines, a Christian state.

So Philippines keeps Sarawak, with a less Anti-cession movement of Sarawak. Because of Sarawak Christian population they would be willing to work together with the Filipinos. This is also gives a greater claim for the Philippines to gain Sabah in the future as well, maybe in the 50s or 60s.

So if they can keep Sabah and Sarawak, how would the Philippines as a whole and also specifically Sabah and Sarawak develop in the future?
 
Last edited:
So after WW2, Charles Vyner Brooke ceded Sarawak to the British Crown and many Sarawakians did not like decision and an anti-cession movement existed until the 1950s.

So Philippines keeps Sarawak, with a less Anti-cession movement of Sarawak. Because of Sarawak Christian population they would be willing to work together with the Filipinos. This is also gives a greater claim for the Philippines to gain Sabah in the future as well, maybe in the 50s or 60s.

So if they can keep Sabah and Sarawak, how would the Philippines as a whole and also specifically Sabah and Sarawak develop in the future?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cession_movement_of_Sarawak

HOW DID PHILIPPINES GOT SARAWAK IN THE FIRST PLACE???
 
HOW DID PHILIPPINES GOT SARAWAK IN THE FIRST PLACE???

Woops my mistake, I forgot to put the POD. :p It is that Charles Vyner decides to cede Sarawak to the Philippines because of Sarawaks majority Christian population would be better off with the Philippines since its a majority Christian nation.
 
Woops my mistake, I forgot to put the POD. :p It is that Charles Vyner decides to cede Sarawak to the Philippines because of Sarawaks majority Christian population would be better off with the Philippines since its a majority Christian nation.

And do you think the Sarawakians will be happy under a Christian country? And will the Filipinos just recovering from the Second Great War be happy to add a substantial amount of Muslim populace to them?

And once more, Britain is a Christian and western country. Why will he cede it to a former colony?
 
And do you think the Sarawakians will be happy under a Christian country? And will the Filipinos just recovering from the Second Great War be happy to add a substantial amount of Muslim populace to them?

And once more, Britain is a Christian and western country. Why will he cede it to a former colony?

Lets assume the Sarawakians will not resist will not put a substantial threat until sometime later. I was inspired by this thread about a Japanese PNG.

Lets assume that the British would not want to take control over Sarawak after WW2 since it was destroyed in the war and Britain is out of a war as well that engulfed the world. Since the Brooke government did not have enough resources himself to rebuild Sarawak, he felt that the best option was cede it to the Philippines as it could have a far better chance in managing Sarawak.
 
This seems highly unlikely:

* The Philippines have also been ruined by years of Japanese occupation and war.

* What's more the Philippines saw more damage than Sarawak suffering both Japanese attack and damage as the Americans reconquered the islands. Even if they wanted to they probably could not afford to help reconstruct Sarawak.

* Historically the cession of Sarawak occurred in February 1946. The Philippines became independent in July 1946. So in essence you would need to have the White Rajah cede his British protectorate to the Americans.

* At the time real control was held by the British Military Administration (Borneo), which governed Sarawak, Sabah, Labuan and Brunei. I can't see the BMA ceding Sarawak to the Americans on behalf of the Philippines.

* The link for the anti-cession movement you provided notes that the movement itself arose from the fact that the cession was done in violation of the 1941 constitution (which had not been implemented due to the Japanese occupation) and that this would lead to eventual independence. And ultimately the movement itself was also sparked by the fact that this was all done without consulting the locals. None of that seems to be a specific anti-British and all these factors would apply in the same manner if Brooke decided to cede Sarawak to the Philippines instead. Once Brooke did not: (1) consult the locals on any cession; (2) act in accordance with and implement the 1941 constitution...then any such move is going to be unpopular.
 
Top