Article

Sultan Abu Bakar’s foreign guests and travels abroad, 1860s-1895: fact and fiction in early Malay historical accounts

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Sultan Abu Bakar’s foreign guests and travels abroad, 1860s-1895: fact and fiction in early Malay historical accounts

A. Rahman Tang Abdullah’s 2011 article in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Vol. 84, Part 1) examines Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor’s foreign travels and reception of foreign guests between the 1860s and 1895, arguing that early Malay historical accounts—particularly those in the syair (long poem) form—were uncritical, fragmentary, and prone to invention and exaggeration, whereas contemporary English-language sources offered more rounded, factual, and occasionally critical portrayals. The paper unravels fact from fiction in these Malay sources and raises two previously unexamined themes: Abu Bakar’s observance of Islamic practice and his conduct at social functions with foreign dignitaries.

Summary

Abu Bakar (r. 1862–1895) progressed from executive official to sovereign ruler, adopting the titles Temenggong Seri Maharaja (1862), Maharaja (1868), and finally Sultan of Johor (1885) with the sanction of Queen Victoria (p. 1). He was the first Malay ruler to visit Europe, travelling there in 1866, 1878, 1885–6, 1889–91, 1893, and 1895, and also to India (1875–6), Java (1881), and East Asia (1883) (p. 1). The Malay primary sources identified by Abdullah include the Tawarikh Dato’ Bentara Luar Johor (the most comprehensive, containing near day-to-day details), the Hikayat Johor (written by Major Mohamed Said Sulaiman, private secretary to Sultan Ibrahim), Syair Tanah Melayu, and Syair Al-Marhum Baginda Sultan Abu Bakar di Negeri Johor (written by an Indonesian-born Chinese, Na Tien Piet) (pp. 2–3).

Abdullah demonstrates that these Malay accounts contain multiple factual errors and significant omissions. The Syair Al-Marhum dates Abu Bakar’s first European visit to 1865 rather than 1866, and places the Duke of Edinburgh’s arrival in Singapore in February 1868 rather than 1869 (p. 3). The Hikayat Johor incorrectly states that the KCSI was awarded during the 1876 India visit, when British correspondence confirms it was conferred before the trip (pp. 3–4). More significantly, the Malay sources omit entirely the visits of Duke Alexis Alexandrovich of Russia (1871), Prince Heinrich of Prussia (1880), the King of Hawaii (1880), and Archduke Ferdinand of Austria (1893), as well as Abu Bakar’s 1890 stay in Germany, which is confirmed by correspondence sent from Frankfurt (p. 4). The Hikayat Johor also fails to mention the visit of Princes Albert Victor and George to Johor in 1882 (p. 8).

The article further explores the political and religious dimensions of Abu Bakar’s travels. The 1885 visit to London achieved the critical outcome of a treaty recognizing Abu Bakar as Sultan of Johor, a political significance that the Malay sources understate (pp. 9–10). British criticism of Abu Bakar’s extravagance emerged only in the 1880s and 1890s—Governor Weld in 1880 and Governor Cecil Smith in 1893, the latter reporting that a single trip had cost approximately $100,000 (pp. 7, 12–13). The Johor Constitution of 1895 imposed a five-year absence restriction on the Sultan (Article 12), which Abdullah argues was likely a symbolic deterrent calibrated to Abu Bakar’s cumulative time abroad (pp. 15–16). On the religious front, Abdullah questions Abu Bakar’s observance of Islam: he broke his fast publicly in Egypt during Ramadhan, never performed the pilgrimage to Makkah despite travelling close to the season, and served alcoholic drinks to non-Muslim guests at his palace (pp. 17–19).

Key Findings

  • The Malay syair and hikayat sources contain verifiable chronological errors (e.g., first European visit dated 1865 instead of 1866; Duke of Edinburgh’s arrival in 1863/1868 instead of 1869) and omit at least four documented visits by foreign royalty to Johor (pp. 3–4).
  • The 1885 treaty, finalized in December 1885 and ratified by Abu Bakar and Secretary of State F. A. Stanley, formally recognized Abu Bakar as Sultan of Johor; this political achievement is barely addressed in the Malay chronicles (pp. 9–10).
  • Governor Cecil Smith’s confidential dispatch of 29 May 1893 to the Colonial Office reported that Abu Bakar’s previous trip alone had incurred costs of about $100,000 and that his personal extravagance had retarded Johor’s development (p. 13).
  • The Johor Constitution of 1895, Article 12, stipulated that if the Sultan were absent for five years the Council could appoint a new ruler; Abdullah notes this duration roughly matches the cumulative total of Abu Bakar’s foreign travels (approximately sixty months) (pp. 15–16).
  • Abu Bakar’s 1893 visit to Constantinople was motivated by his desire to obtain political recognition from Sultan Abdul Hamid, who invested him with the Ottoman Crown Order (Bintang Majidi), normally reserved for sovereign rulers (p. 12).
  • The Tawarikh Dato’ Bentara Luar records that Abu Bakar converted four Japanese women to Islam during his 1883 stay in Kobe; Amin Sweeney interpreted these as euphemisms for sexual relationships, a claim Abdullah finds unsubstantiated (pp. 19–20).

Conclusion

Abdullah’s definitive takeaway is that only two of Abu Bakar’s foreign visits—the 1866 trip to England and the 1885 journey that secured the Sultan title—were politically constructive and free from legitimate criticism; all subsequent European visits (1878, 1889–91, 1893, 1895) served primarily to enhance personal prestige at considerable financial cost to the state (p. 20). The Malay sources, bound by the conventions of traditional historiography that glorified the ruler, systematically suppressed criticism, omitted inconvenient events, and invented details to elevate Abu Bakar’s stature, whereas the English-language record preserved a more balanced and sometimes critical account of a ruler whose cosmopolitan ambitions outstripped the financial and administrative capacity of his small state.

Context

  • The article draws on British colonial correspondence held in the Public Record Office (CO 273 series), the Windsor Royal Archives (Queen Victoria’s journal, King Edward VII’s diary, King George V’s diary), and Japanese Foreign Office records, positioning it as a comparative source study between Malay and English archival traditions.
  • The Tawarikh Dato’ Bentara Luar Johor, originally in Jawi script, was transliterated by Amin Sweeney and translated into English as Reputations Live On (1980), making it accessible to a wider scholarly audience and serving as the backbone of the Malay-language evidence base for this study (p. 2).

References