Article

The Bendaharas and the Temenggongs

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

The Bendaharas and the Temenggongs

R.O. Winstedt’s 1932 article reconstructs the genealogies of the hereditary Bendahara and Temenggong offices in the Johore-Riau-Lingga sultanate from the Malacca period through the early nineteenth century, arguing that these two offices were held by a single interrelated dynasty descended from the Tamil-Malay figure Mani Purindan and that the Temenggongs’ possession of Bugis royal blood ultimately enabled them to claim sovereignty over the throne.

Summary

Winstedt begins by establishing the Malacca-period Bendahara lineage through the Sejarah Melayu, tracing descent from Mani Purindan (whose Tamil name literally means “keeper of jewels,” i.e. bendahara) through Tun Sri Lanang’s own genealogical statement. He demonstrates that this great house consistently stood adjacent to the throne: its members opened Klang, Negri Sembilan, and Perak, and followed the Sultans from Johore to Riau and Lingga. The narrative then shifts to the post-1530 Johore period, where Winstedt constructs a genealogical tree from the Sejarah Melayu and shows how the Laksamana/Paduka Raja faction dominated from the 1640s until 1688, when the Bendaharas reasserted control.

The central difficulty of the article is the eighteenth century, which Winstedt calls “an insoluble problem.” Chroniclers routinely give titles without personal names, Bugis-Malay conflicts introduced bias into the sources, and officials moved freely across the Riau-Lingga-Pahang territory, making it hard to determine whether a given Bendahara was a Riau or Pahang officer. Winstedt critiques R.J. Wilkinson’s 1931 tree for omitting names attested in the Tuhfat al-Nafis and other sources, and proposes a revised genealogy incorporating figures such as Tun Abbas (who went mad in 1736), Tun Hussain of Peko’, and the enigmatic Engku Raja Indra Bongsu. He draws on a Muar genealogy, a Johore manuscript Hikayat Kerajaan, a Batavian Sejarah Raja-Raja Riau, Dutch treaties cited by Netscher, and the Dagh-Register at Batavia to piece together the succession.

The article’s most original contribution concerns Engku Muda (Raja Muhammad), the son of Temenggong Abdu’l-Jamal, who in 1792 was given governance of Riau by Sultan Muhammad Shah of Linggi and subsequently claimed the office of Yamtuan Muda on the basis of descent from Sultan Abdu’l-Jalil on both paternal and maternal sides. Winstedt explains the Bugis titles borne by Engku Muda’s “brothers” (Daeng Chela’, Daeng Kechil) as a reflection of their Bugis grandfather Daeng Parani’s rank, and argues that the Temenggongs’ Bugis royal blood—absent in the Pahang Bendaharas—was the decisive factor that allowed them to assume sovereignty in 1868 and 1885.

Key Findings

  • Mani Purindan’s Tamil name equates directly to bendahara (“keeper of jewels”), and the formula kaddasa Allahu sirrahum in Tun Sri Lanang’s genealogy suggests the early Bendaharas were religious mystics (p. 55).
  • The 1685 Dutch treaty was signed by four chiefs in hierarchical order: Dato Paduka (Raja), Dato Bendara Maraja, Orang Kaya Laksamana, and Orang Kaya Temenggong Paduka Tuan—the Temenggong signing before the Bendahara (p. 57).
  • Bendahara Tun Habib Abdu’l Majid died on 7 Muharram 1109 A.H. (1697 A.D.) according to the Tuhfat al-Nafis; the title Habib is identified as an Achinese honorific for Sayids (p. 58).
  • Tun Abbas was appointed Bendahara Sri Maharaja in 1722 (28 Rajab 1161 A.H.) and went mad in 1736; Engku Raja Indra Bongsu was appointed Bendahara Sri Maharaja in 1748 when Daeng Kemboja became Yamtuan Muda (pp. 59–60).
  • In 1792 Sultan Muhammad Shah of Linggi handed Riau to Engku Muda, who opened Tanjong Unggit; in 1801 he blockaded Riau with eighty large vessels, half of them Ilanun (pp. 63–64).
  • Sultan Sulaiman, the last male-line descendant of Sultan Abdu’l-Jalil, died in 1883, after a two-year interregnum the Sultanate of Lingga was conferred on Raja Abdu’r-Rahman, who inherited through his mother, great-granddaughter of Temenggong Abdu’r-Rahman of Singapore (p. 65).

Conclusion

Winstedt’s definitive takeaway is that the Temenggongs of Johore-Singapore were not merely Malay nobles but possessed Bugis royal blood through their descent from Daeng Parani, and this dual lineage was the genealogical key that distinguished them from the Pahang Bendaharas and justified their eventual assumption of the sultanate in the nineteenth century.

Context

  • Primary sources include the Sejarah Melayu (Shellabear ed. 1909), the Tuhfat al-Nafis, the Hikayat Negeri Johor, a Muar Temenggong genealogy, a Johore MS Hikayat Kerajaan, a Batavian Sejarah Raja-Raja Riau (van Ronkel CCCLVIII), the Dagh-Register at Batavia, and Dutch treaties as compiled by Netscher (Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap, dl. XXXV, 1870).
  • The article represents a significant advance over Wilkinson’s 1923 and 1931 reconstructions by incorporating previously unutilized Malay manuscripts and by identifying the Bugis royal bloodline as the explanatory principle for the Temenggongs’ sovereignty claims.

References