Peter Nicholas Tarling died suddenly on 13 May 2017 while swimming in the Pacific Ocean near his home in Devonport, New Zealand. (1)

Although Nick, as he was affectionately known, might not be with us anymore, many who were close to him will miss him dearly and, in our memory, his endearing characteristics will live on. We will remember him, as I have written elsewhere, for

his thoughtful opinions, laid-back mannerism, shyness, curiosity, and
genuine interest in listening to others irrespective of age or rank.
The more than three decades that I [knew] Nick, he [was] consistently
unassuming, generous in all scholarly endeavours, reliable, and a true
friend. (2)

In this memorial, I will attempt to assess Nick's contribution to the study of Borneo history. (3) But before doing so, allow me to recall a morning in Tokyo some 24 years ago. At Sophia University, while in line to register for a conference, an elderly gentleman across in a parallel queue gave me a whimsical "wink." As a doctoral student, I was unknown, even irrelevant, to the large body of participants. Who was this "cheeky" old chap? I "replied" with a smile. Then we started to chat. His name label identified him as "Nicholas Tarling," the author of a biography of Sir James Brooke, who was the subject of my presentation. Professor Tarling said that he would attend my talk and his doing so swelled my audience to three. (4) After my conclusion, this esteemed professor stood up and posed a single question: "Did Brooke's views change over time?"

Since that initial encounter, Nick and I remained in touch, now and then meeting at conferences. We had been in more frequent and regular contacts following the inaugural (biennial) "Nicholas Tarling Conference on Southeast Asian Studies", held in Singapore in 2009. (5)

On Borneo--more precisely the British Bornean territories of Sarawak, Brunei, and North Borneo (present-day Sabah)--Nick produced three monographs and 16 journal articles. (6) As with all his other work, Nick's preoccupation was with British policy, its influence and impact. The rest of Borneo (Kalimantan) came, of course, within the Dutch spheres of influence.

Nick first explored British policy towards Borneo in his first book, Piracy and Politics in the Malay World, published in 1963 and, tellingly, subtitled A study of British imperialism in nineteenth-century South-east Asia, one chapter of which explored British policy responses to Sea Dayak and other marauding in Sarawak, and James Brooke's claims that the Sea Dayaks were pirates. (7)

Nick's three monographs on British Borneo are:

1. Britain, the Brookes and Brunei. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1971.

2. Sulu and Sabah: A Study of British Policy Towards the Philippines and North Borneo from the Late Eighteenth Century. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1978.

3. The Burthen, the Risk and the Glory: A Biography of Sir James Brooke. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1982.

I return to the mongraphs below.

Additionally, Nick published 16 journal articles on Borneo.

I have distinguished two major themes in this latter corpus, namely the "History of Britain and British Borneo" and, secondly, "Biographies and Historiographies of British Borneo."

Nick's articles on "History of Britain and British Borneo" were:

1. Sir James Brooke and Brunei, Sarawak Museum Journal, 11, 21-22 (n.s.) (1963):1-12.

2. The Entrepot at Labuan and the Chinese." In: J. Ch'en and N. Tarling, eds., Studies in the Social History of China and South-East Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pp. 355-73. Reprinted in the Sabah Society Journal, 5, 2 (1970): 101-16.

3. Britain and Brunei in the Nineteenth Century, Journal of the University of Singapore Historical Society, July (1970): 12-18.

4. Borneo and British Intervention in Malaya, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 5, 2 (1974): 159-65.

5. Britain and Sarawak in the Twentieth Century: Raja Charles, Raja Vyner and the Colonial Office, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 43, 2 (1970): 25-52.

6. Sir Cecil Clementi and the Federation of British Borneo, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 44, 2 (1971): 1-34.

7. The Brookes and the British Government. In: V. T. King and A. V. M. Horton, eds., From Buckfast to Borneo. Essays presented to Father Robert Nicholl on the 85th" Anniversary of His Birth. Hull, England: University of Hull, 1995. Pp. 253-9.

8. Brooke Rule in Sarawak and Its Principles, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 65, 1 (1992): 15-26.

9. Sabah, Brunei, Sarawak: An Imperial Legacy. In: IAHA 2000 Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the International Association of Historian of Asia, Kota Kinabalu, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, 2003. Pp. 173-83.

10. Mat Salleh and Krani Usman, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 16, 1 (1985): 46-68.

Nick's articles concering the "Biographies and Historiographies of British Borneo" were:

1. St John's Biography of Sir James Brooke, Sarawak Museum Journal, 41, 62 (n.s.)(1990): 255-70.

2. Sir James Brooke: A New Biography. Some Comments, Sarawak Museum Journal, 29, 50 (n.s.) (1981): 137-42.

3. Spenser St John and his Life in the Forests of the Far East, Sarawak Museum Journal, 23, 44 (n.s.) (1975): 293-305.

4. Some Notes on the Historiography of British Borneo. In: C. D. Cowan and O. W. Wolters, eds., Southeast Asian History and Historiography. Essays presented to D. G. E. Hall. Ithca and London: Cornell University Press, 1976. pp. 285-95.

5. Further Notes on the Historiography of British Borneo, Borneo Research Bulletin, 36(2005): 213-28.

6. Perspectives and Problems in the Historiography of Brunei. In: Putu Davies, eds, Constructing a National Past: History and Historiography in Brunei, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam. Brunei: Universiti Brunei Darussalam, 1996. pp. 68-78.

The concerns of many of these articles are interrelated, some in specifics, others in a wider spectrum of developments. In this connection, Nick's readers can identify some enduring interests and themes which Nick pursued, from different angles and at different times. "Sir James Brooke and Brunei" (1963), "The Entrepot at Labuan and the Chinese" (1970), and "Britain and Brunei in the Nineteenth Century" (1970) all focus on James Brooke, the central 'character' across three 'acts.' Similarly, "Borneo and British Intervention in Malaya" (1974), "Britain and Sarawak in the Twentieth Century: Raja Charles, Raja Vyner and the Colonial Office" (1970), and "Sir Cecil Clementi and the Federation of British Borneo" (1971) collectively deal on the issue of enjoining the British Bornean territories into closer relations with each other. "Brooke Rule in Sarawak and Its Principles" (1992) and "The Brookes and the British Government" (1995) overlap in their discussion of the ambiguous relationship between the Brooke Rajahs and the British government. "Some Notes on the Historiography of British Borneo" (1976), "Further Notes on the Historiography of British Borneo" (2005), and "Perspectives and Problems in the Historiography of Brunei" (2006) represent Nick's interest in the historiography of British Borneo, including the place of his own corpus in it.

Let me turn now to the three monographs (and, henceforth deploy more formal and respectful references to "Tarling," rather than to my friend, "Nick"). The main focus of Britain, the Brookes and Brunei (1971, 578 pages), was the Sultanate of Brunei, from its earliest contacts with Britain to the appointment of a British "resident" to the royal court in 1905. In characteristic fashion, Tarling unfurled a complex, copiously detailed narrative of the fate of the sultanate that, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, was physically shrinking as a consequence of the actions and intentions of the kingdom's neighbors (Sarawak and British North Borneo). In Tarling's estimation, however, the roles of Britain and the other Western powers, the Dutch in particular, dominateded the historical narrative. Brunei's survival as an independent political entity was the final outcome of complex processes which were masterfully presented in the concluding chapter. Largely drawn from his doctoral thesis (1956) at Cambridge University, this volume remains the definitive work on nineteenth century British policy (or non-policy) towards northern Borneo, a rather secondary and peripheral region of Asia. It might be pleasurable consumption for diplomatic history specialists but for others it is not easy to read. Its extensive descriptive narrative could have been improved with greater analysis and synthesis of the sort that Tarling displayed in other works.

Sulu and Sabah: A Study of British Policy Towards the Philippines and North Borneo from the Late Eighteenth Century (1978, 385 pages), which could have been marketed as "volume II" of Britain, the Brookes and Brunei (1971), expanded and extended in territory and time span of Tarling's consideration respectively. Tarling's main concern, again, was Britain's policy towards that region of Southeast Asia in the late eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century, a policy determined by Whitehall's disinclination for colonial acquisition and its concomitant financial obligation (read; burden) on the one hand, and the demands of private commercial enterprise for free trade and protection of the sea lanes, on the other. In this iteration, Tarling's focus is North Borneo (present-day Sabah) and an assortment of potential suitors, viz. the Sultanate of Brunei, Sarawak under the Brookes, the Sultanate of Sulu, neighboring colonial powers the Spanish Philippines and the Dutch East Indies and other interested parties, such as Germany, Italy, France and, even, the United States.

Since Tarling's forte was with the wider or "big picture" of British policy in Asia, the micro-picture or the internal politics of Brunei, Sarawak, Sulu, or the Crown Colony of Labuan, received less attention. The court intrigues and factional rivalries, whether in Brunei's or Sulu's court was scantily tapped, simply for want of local sources to further enrich the dense narrative. A British perspective on events, situations and developments was unavoidable owing to the source materials consulted. Nonetheless, the contribution of this volume to the literature was never in doubt.

With hindsight, The Burthen, the Risk and the Glory: A Biography of Sir James Brooke (1982) appeared to have been an inevitable outcome of Tarling's previous research, "inevitable" because James Brooke (1803-1868) was a key player throughout Britain's encounters and endeaavors in northern Borneo during the mid-nineteenth century. At various points of time in his career over the first three and half decades of the early Victorian era Brooke was seen variously as a "swashbuckling hero" or "empire builder" or, in the less flattering terms of Colonial Office (CO) and Foreign Office (FO) officials as a "maverick," "interloper," "anomalous personage," or "anachronistic figure." Where earlier biographies had detailed Brooke's personal life and personality, (8) Tarling focused on the politico-diplomatic relations between Brooke and the officialdom at Whitehall, the CO, and the FO. The international status of Sarawak, rather anomalous during his lifetime, was of particular concern to Brooke, and posed a central theme in the narrative. The succession, a sensitive and touchy issue, and intimately interrelated with Sarawak's status and future, was another major theme featured. Apart from the latter, there was little additional information to rabout Brooke's early life, career in India, Burma, and familial relations. Brooke's relations with his benefactor, Angela Georgina Burdett-Coutts (1814-1906), later Baroness Burdett-Coutts, as well as with his attorney friend, John C. Templer, were sparingly mentioned. The same holds true concerning; events in Sarawak itself, such as his participation in the various encounters with alleged Dayak "pirates" of the Skrang and Saribas. Perhaps a little more light on the exploits of the swashbuckling handsome man in midshipman's uniform portrayed by Sir Francis Grant (National Portrait Gallery, London) might have injected action and excitement into the prose. Nonetheless, biography derives from Tarling's long-term intellectual interest, Britain's policy towards the northern upper half of the island, and it offers an excellent study of Brooke's contribution to it during the early Victorian era.

I turn now to a brief assessment of some of his journal articles.

In "Sabah, Brunei, Sarawak: An Imperial Legacy" (2003) Tarling evaluated Britain's legacy in northern Borneo. The outcome of his review is both thoughtful and surprising.

In a history of [British] imperialism in Southeast Asia, it might seem
that Borneo should occupy a rather small space. Yet, what happened
there suggests something about the nature of [British] imperialism as a
whole, just as a study of [British] imperialism helps to explain
something of the history of northern Borneo.

Moreover,

The ventures of the Brookes and indeed of the capital-derived Company
are indeed easier to fit into a pattern of state-building than into a
capitalist conspiracy.

In other words, there appeared many "lessons" to be learnt from the historical development of northern Borneo from the late eighteenth century to the first half of the twentieth century that Tarling expertly expounded.

Importantly, moreover, Tarling was able to learn from other historians, and particularly, in the utilization of oral tradition in the re-construction and re-interpretation of history. "Mat Salleh and Krani Usman" (1985) was borne from Tarling's serious consideration of an occasion at a conference commemorating the centenary of Sabah. Tarling recollected that,

[according to Haji Asaad]... the territories on the east coast were to
be shared between the Sultan of Sulu and his successors, on the one
hand, and the two leading Nakodahs [captain of a ship], Sangkalang and
Angging, on the other. The Nakodahs retained "that part on the East
facing Jolo." The Haji argued that this included Sandakan, which had
therefore been wrongly leased [to Alfred Dent and Baron Gustav von
Overbeck] by the Sultan [of Sulu] in 1878.

Furthermore, Haji Asaad maintained,

Mat Salleh was a cousin of Usman Sangkalang. The latter was born in
Buli Sim Sim, Sandakan, in 1863. According to Haji Asaad, his son.
[William] Pryer was his patron, and he was designated Ketua Kampong
[village headman] at 15. By 1894 he was a clerk or krani employed by
the Company. Great grandson of Sangkalang, he [Usman] was, like Mat
Salleh. a claimant to a portion of the North Borneo territory. This,
the Haji claims, was the gist of the petition Mat Salleh sought to
present to the Governor in 1894. While in Sandakan, he [Mat Salleh]
stayed in Usman's house in Buli Sim Sim.

Tarling's deployed these oral traditions to declare Mat Salleh to have been "No more adventurer than nationalist, Mat Salleh was [simply and rightfully] taking up the cause of the heirs of Nakodah Sangkalang." An astounding hypothesis indeed.

Tarling subsequently embarked on a re-examination of the documentary records, largely from CO files but also including the then contemporary leading broadsheet, British North Borneo Herald. He came away with the conclusion that stripped Mat Salleh off his hitherto label of a rebel, an adventurer; or, even, of a nationalist. Instead Datu Muhammad Salleh (aka Mat Salleh) was a legitimate claimant to territory from the Sultan of Sulu. The issue of the status of Sabah which derives from such subtleties is ever-present. (9)

Between "Some Notes on the Historiography of British Borneo" (1976) and "Further Notes on the Historiography of British Borneo" (2005), Tarling covered much historiographical ground. The initial article reviewed works from the last quarter of the eighteenth century to the mid-1970s, and the second survey takes the review to the mid-2000s. A three-decade gap between the literature review necessarily gave rise to various observations. Tarling's pessimism was apparent in his concluding the initial review (1976):

On the period between the early twentieth century and the Pacific war,
little has so far been published; little may ever be
published....Unless substantial private archives are uncovered, this
period seems likely to remain, rather curiously, the most obscure of
all in the history of the relations of Britain and Borneo.

On the post-war period,

What historiography of the postwar period we can at present create
depends largely on official documents and newspapers.... Interviewing
is a further resource which must not be again neglected.

Tarling, however, was more upbeat in his second survey (2005) where he registered his observations. He drew attention to the increasing decline in document-based source materials, as "Much business is now done verbally or electronically, and that may in the long term be even more unhelpful to the historian..." On the positive side, there appeared to be "the expansion of the historical profession, and of the range of approaches historians adopt." Notwithstanding the fact that "national" history remained the "regnant paradigm," historians work not only on a range of topics within "national" history, but increasingly on aspects of the history of their ASEAN neighbors." The expansion of universities in Malaysia especially, in both number and size since the 1970s, including in Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah, was cause for optimism, as were, the literary societies and museums that published journals and bulletins that are "hospitable to historians." Given the developments in the past three decades, "shifts in focus are to be expected.... older topics remain of interest, even if perspectives have changed." While that of its neighbors were in a healthy state, Tarling regretted that "Sabah's historiography seems to be relatively neglected."

Tarling was particularly concerned at attempts to present the historiesy of Sarawak and Sabah as "an integral part of a national history," suggesting that "a balance can be achieved between the local and the national." Furthermore, he considered that

It will be important, too, that the 'international' boundaries do not
rule out cross-border studies and collaborative and comparative work
with historians of Kalimantan. Nor, more generally, should the focus on
local and the national discourage the continued participation of
scholars from other parts of the world.

Tarling urged historians of Borneo to be "open to methods and insights afforded by the development of other disciplines." Lastly, he cautioned against the trend towards adopting "a mandate for complete relativity" consequent of the "recognition that complete objectivity is unattainable?":

The preferable view is surely that, while objectivity is unattainable,
dismissing the attempt is irresponsible.... [and] that may only make it
easier to employ history to buttress ideology.

The issue that Tarling sought to address in "Perspectives and Problems in the Historiography of Brunei" (1996), was "Of what Brunei are we writing?" configuration of contemporary Brunei, "a new country" that did not reflect "an ancient country," to borrow the phrases used by the Sultan in his speech in 1986. Therefore, the historical development from "an ancient country" of more than five centuries-old to "a new country" that attained independence in 1984 needs serious thought in the matter of approach. Tarling suggested that Brunei historiography could be undertaken from four perspectives, viz. "sultanate among sultanates," "the configuration of the 16th-18th centuries," "19th century imperialism," and "the twentieth century."

Moreover, he digressed further.

The comparative approach would help to determine the special features
of Brunei... [and] [c]ombined with the chronological approach, it
would help to explain to what extent these special features were
modified over time, and to what extent they explained the unique
outcome...

Concluding Remarks

Having spent close to half a century studying, researching, and writing
about British relations with northern Borneo, Tarling is without doubt
the doyen of the historiography of British Borneo (Ooi 2013: 12).

This was what I penned as a tribute in the "Introduction" to volume V of The Works of Nicholas Tarling on Southeast Asia (2013). To fill his shoes would be, indeed, a tall order. Nonetheless, as "the show must go on," and Nick, the consummate Shakespearean actor (another side of him), would certainly have had it no other way. Therefore, the onus is on the rest of us to push further forward the historiographical frontier of- Borneo

(Ooi Keat Gin, Asia Pacific Research Unit (APRU) School of Humanities Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang)

(1) Professor Paul Clark to Emeritus Professors Anthony Reid and Wang Gungwu, e-mail of 17 May 2017.

(2) Preamble to "The Passing of Emeritus Professor Nicholas Tarling," International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 13, 2 (2017): 161-178. Emphasis added

(3) Book Review Editor's note: Nicholas Tarling's immense contribution to the wider scholarship of Southeast Asia has been properly noted in obituaries in journals with wider interests than the Borneo Research Bulletin. Focusing on his Borneo scholarship is not intended to deny the importance of that other work. For a comprehensive account of Professor Tarling's life and career, see Ooi Keat Gin. "Peter Nicholas Tarling: A Tribute," New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 11. 1 (June 2009): 15-30 (http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/NZJAS-June09/6_Tribute_4.pdf).

(4) Both the young Japanese men in the audience were, I suspect, conference helpers.

(5) A fourth outing scheduled for Bangkok in 2017 was postponed due to Nick's sudden demise. In fact, Nick and I were in correspondence about this Bangkok conference when I received news of his untimely death.

(6) All the journal articles can be accessed in volume V of The Works of Nicholas Tarling on Southeast Asia, edited by Ooi Keat Gin (London and New York: Routledge. 2013).

(7) Book Review Editor's note: Professor Tarling's sustained interest in the development of British policy towards Southeast Asia distinguished him, increasingly, from his contemporaries who, following the publication of John Smail's "On the Possibility of an Autonomous History of Southeast Asia", (Journal of Southeast Asian History, 2:2, 1961. pp. 72-102.) sought to approach Southeast Asian history from the perspectives of Southeast Asia people, themselves

(8) Gertrude Le Grand Jacob, The Raja of Sarawak: An Account of Sir James Brooks. K. C. B., LL. D., Given Chiefly Through Letters and Journals (London: MacMillan, 1876), Spenser St. John, The Life of Sir James Brooke Rajah of Sarawak: from His Personal Papers and Correspondence (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1994. First published in 1879 by Blackwood, London), Emily Hahn, James Brooke of Sarawak: A Biography of Sir James Brooke (London: A. Barker, 1953).

(9) The Star, 15 January 2018.