Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-03T07:00:52.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Thoughts on the Economic Development of Malaya under British Administration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2011

J. H. Drabble
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several years ago Wong Lin Ken noted that, as yet, no general economic history of Malaysia had been written. Since then a considerable number of studies in both article and bookform have appeared; too many for a comprehensive listing here. These range from specialised works on particular industries, or aspects such as immigration, to more wide-ranging analyses of the political, social and administrative structure. The periods surveyed also vary considerably, but the tendency is towards relatively short time-spans of some twenty to forty years in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Only one recent book, Economic Development of Modern Malaya by an economist, Lim Chong Yah, seeks to cover the economy as a whole over a longer period, roughly 1874–1963. But from the historian's viewpoint, much primary research still remains to be done before the pattern of changes in this period can be explained in full detail. However, the work done to date makes it possible to re-examine certain broad aspects such as the effects which can be directly attributed to the introduction of British administration. This is facilitated if some account is also taken of the very extensive literature on economic development, and colonialism, as well as on the situation in other countries with a similar historical experience. It must be emphasised that the following survey is necessarily selective in terms of the topics included and the published materials referred to.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 5 , Special Issue 2: The Centenary of British Intervention in Malaya , September 1974 , pp. 199 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ken, Wong Lin, “The Economic History of Malaysia: A Bibliographic Essay”, Journal of Economic History, XXV, 1965, 242–62Google Scholar. This survey includes the former British territories in North Borneo which became part of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.

2 Lewis, W. A. (ed.), Tropical Development 1880–1913, London, 1970, chapter 1.Google Scholar

3 In a summary of this type, it is not possible to give attributions for the component parts.

4 Yah, Lim Chong, Economic Development of Modern Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 1967, p. 258.Google Scholar

5 Adas, Michael, “Imperialist Rhetoric and Modern Historiography: The Case of Lower Burma before and after Conquest”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, III, 1972, 175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Jackson, J. C., Planters and Speculators, Kuala Lumpur, 1968, p. 6.Google Scholar

7 Ken, Wong Lin, The Malayan Tin Industry to 1914, Arizona, 1965, pp. 43–7.Google Scholar

8 Kim, Khoo Kay, The Western Malay States, 1850–73, Kuala Lumpur, 1972, p. 108.Google Scholar

9 Ibid, p. 55.

10 Cant, R. G., An Historical Geography of Pahang, Malaysian Branch Royal Asiatic Society, Monograph No. 4, 1973, pp. 34–7.Google Scholar

11 Turnbull, C. M., The Straits Settlements, 1826–67, London, 1972, p. 314.Google Scholar

12 Khoo Kay Kim, pp. 226–7.

13 Lim Chong Yah, p. 192

14 For a fuller statement of this argument, see Drabble, J. H., Rubber in Malaya, 1876–1922, Kuala Lumpur, 1973, pp. 206–7.Google Scholar

15 Khoo Kay Kim, pp. 226–7.

16 Sadka, E., The Protected Malay States, 1874–95, Kuala Lumpur, 1968, p. 381.Google Scholar

17 Sinclair, K., “Hobson and Lenin in Johore: Colonial Office Policy towards British concessionaires and investors 1878–1907”, Modern Asian Studies, 4, 1967, 335–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ahmat, Sharom, “The Structure of the Economy of Kedah, 1879–1905”, Journal of Malaysian Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, XLIII, 2, 1970, 1–24.Google Scholar

18 SirSwettenham, Frank, British Malaya, revised London edition, 1948, pp. 262–3, 369–70.Google Scholar

19 See Wong Lin Ken, chapter III.

20 Drake, P. J., “Natural Resources Versus Foreign Borrowing in Economic Development”, The Economic Journal, LXXXII, 1972, 951–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 See E. Sadka, chapter X.

22 J. H. Drabble, p. 229.

23 Drabble, J. H. and Drake, P. J., “More on the Financing of Malayan Rubber 1905–23”, Economic History Review, 2nd Series, XXVII, 1974, 108–20. In a sample of seven companies, the vendors' shares represent nearly half the initial issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 P. J. Drake, ‘Natural Resources Versus Foreign Borrowing …’, pp. 952–3, 960.

25 See J. H. Drabble, chapter I.

26 Ibid, p. 92.

27 Noted by J. C. Jackson, p. 266–7.

28 Wong Lin Ken, pp. 237–8.

29 From 1937 to 1941 rubber exports from the British Empire averaged US $200–225 million a year of which Malaya accounted for about US $165 million. In 1937 rubber formed 23⋅7% of domestic exports from British territories. Figures from a draft report in 1946 for submission to the Rubber Study Group, London.

30 See J. H. Drabble, chapter 6.

31 Courtenay, P. P., A Geography of Trade and Development in Malaya, London, 1972, pp. 126–36.Google Scholar

32 J. H. Drabble, p. 166. These divisions have never been wholly overcome even to the present time.

33 Burger, D. H., Indonesian Economics, The Hague, 1966, p. 319.Google Scholar

34 P. P. Courtenay, p. 133.

35 This relates to the situation in the inter-war period and is based on the author's current research on the Malayan rubber industry, 1922–42. J. C. Ingram explains the slow development of the industry in Thailand as partly due to the limited size of the local market and the lack of domestic raw materials. See his Economic Change in Thailand 1850–1970, Revised edition, Kuala Lumpur, 1971, pp. 132–5.Google Scholar

36 W. A. Lewis (ed.), p. 19.

37 J. H. Drabble, pp. 206–7. The average yields for unselected seedling trees were around 500 lbs per acre per annum compared to 1,000–2,000 lbs per acre and above from high-yielding trees which are the results of prolonged experiments in plant breeding.

38 See e.g. Emerson, R., Malaysia, Reprint, Kuala Lumpur, 1964Google Scholar; Bilainkin, G., Hail Penang, London, 1932.Google Scholar

39 Lim, David, Economic Growth and Development in West Malaysia, 1947–70, Kuala Lumpur, 1973, p. 59.Google Scholar

40 This referred particularly to kampong (village) land which was the site of rice planting, fruit trees, houses etc. considered integral to the maintenance of settled communities of Malays, whereas kebuns (gardens) were planted with crops of commercial and more speculative importance, mainly rubber.

41 The index figures for the production, planted area and yield of rice in 1936–40 are 106, 101 and 105 respectively (1931–5 = 100). Lim Chong Yah, Table 6.7, p. 151.

42 See David Lim, p. 59; P. P. Courtenay, pp. 126–36.

43 Ehrlich, Cyril, ‘Building and Caretaking: Economic Policy in British Tropical Africa, 1890–1960’, Economic History Review, 2nd Series, XXVI, November 1973, 650, 654.Google Scholar

44 In 1953 Malay-owned smallholdings totalled approximately 648,000 acres out of a total 3,647,000 acres of rubber. Lim Chong Yah, pp. 329, 332. W. A. Lewis (ed.), p. 24, suggests that the governments of tropical countries in general, though not actively hostile to small-scale agriculture, seldom had positive policies in support of this sector.

45 Bauer, P. T., Dissent on Development, London, 1971, p. 44Google Scholar. This observation can be applied to Malaya, except that the extent of the peasant switch to rubber-growing as a sole means of livelihood was probably greater there than in Sumatra or Borneo.

46 Gould, J. D., Economic Growth in History, London, 1972, p. 249.Google Scholar

47 W. A. Lewis (ed.), p. 27. P. T. Bauer, pp. 152–3, argues that there is no reason to think that sovereign governments would have been more favourable to economic development than colonial ones.

48 See W. A. Lewis (ed.), chapter I.

49 See Caldwell, J. A. M., ‘Some Aspects of South-East Asian Economic History’, Journal of the Historical Society, University of Malaya, III, 1964/1965, 83–93Google Scholar. He argues that the relationship between impersonal world economic forces and South-East Asian economies has been insufficiently documented and analysed in many previous studies.

50 One of the latest studies of the importance of economic factors in western imperial policy, Fieldhouse, D. K., Economics and Empire, 1830–1914, London, 1973Google Scholar, does not find any discontinuity therein during this period.

51 Fieldhouse, D. K., The Colonial Empires, London, 1966, p. 382Google Scholar, suggests that “Colonial status was primarily a political phenomenon.”