notes on the Research EstablishmentNotes on Social and Culture HistoryHotes on Ethnic PluralismNotes on Cross-cultural ComparisonConcluding RemarksBIBLIOGRAPHY

Pp. 1-38 in John A. Lent (ed. MalaysiaStudies: Present Knowledge and ResearchTrends. Center for Southeast Asian Studies.Northern Illinois University. OccasionalPaper No. 7. 1979.

Chapter One

SOCIOLOGY

Charles Hirschman

Introduction

The review of sociological research in and on Malay-sia is a difficult task for more than the usual reasons.First, as an academic discipline, sociology is a relative-ly recent development in Malaysia, largely a product ofthe last decade. However, this does not mean that socio-logical research is new to Malaysia, only that the rele-vant research was conducted and published under the aus-pices of a number of other social science disciplines.Second, this search for sociological content rather thanthe sociological label is compounded by the rather im-perialistic scope of the field of sociology. Virtuallyany research that attempts to generalize about the struc-ture of society or social processes can be included with-in the sociological purview. Lest I attempt the impossibleor stray too far into the domain of other disciplines, myreview concentrates on certain selective topics in Malayaian society.

The primary focus of this chapter is on ethnic in-equality-a dominant issue in contemporary Malaysia. (Tobe consistent, I use the term Malaysia, although my focusis on Peninsular Malaysia.) But I also review both so-of the critical sociological issues in the historicaldevelopment of Malaysia (Malaya) and some of the emerging

Sociology

social science literature on public policy, especiallyin reaction to the Second Malaysia Plan. Before tumLgto these topics, the development of sociology as an aca9demic discipline in Malaysia is surveyed and some of ^adistinctive features are discussed.

The Discipline of Sociology In Malaysia

Within the British academic tradition, sociology

social ^ sub^ct’ nost often ^"^"ed as part^rsocial anthropology. Not too surprisingly, there werefew sociological studies conducted in Malaya during tnelong period of British dominance. But this sl^aSon canonly partially be explained by the lack of Britishsociologists. More basic reasons were the colonial

anSSoT a general "i"t"est in higher education and

SonS ^B aay sot:i&l science instigation that ques-

liT^ti ^ prewilin^ 30cial ord". Aside from the pub8lications of colonial civil servants, there were only aS^^^^’^s ^6"^"-^^^^S^-La-^t"^.^^w ^udlth

^c.1;.1:^^^:?^.?^0;^-^^

^^i^.^r^^^y^^r.^r.^r^^:: ^:^ty , culllcf. <l,se) .cJ;t , th.^!:? ^.tnr. of Mtl.y .oclety prior to Britl.h colonlil rul.

ll,!...’1?’" "*" ’ fe" """’1 contribution, by non-British .oci.l .cienti.t. during the colonial r "L^’"T:, ’’*;;’"1 " cl"81c ^"r^ BrS.n^^poiS; ^L1^" ^ r^0:""1 T4’."r^r^*"’10" ocl<"^" ’ . ^Ttl^o ^rot..^"":^ S-o^y1.- ^.c^.u?l^ ^ th-

.uy ^ "^^^^o,l^^^s"^s^:.

Sociology

social science began. This process continued with the

expansion of higher education after independence inMalaysia (Malaya) The University of Malaya in KualaLumpur opened in 1958 and slightly more than a decadelater the Universiti Sains in Penang and UniversitiKebangsaan in Kuala Lumpur were founded. A few yearslater Universiti Pertanian became the fourth universityto be established in Malaysia (excluding the Universityof Singapore, formerly the University of Malaya in Singa-

pore

In addition to providing higher education for theyouth of the nation, the universities in Malaysia createdan environment for the development of research and otherscholarly activities in the social sciences. Most ofthese activities occurred in the Department of Economics(later the Faculty of Economics and Administration) atthe University of Malaya. While sociology was not ini-tially included as a formal dep?rtment in the Universityof Malaya, many of the economics studies included con-sideration of the institutional structure of society.Perhaps, the presence of Ungku Aziz, first as a professorof economics and later as vice chancellor of the univer-sity of Malaya, encouraged a focus on poverty, inter-ethnic relations, and other topics drawing upon bothsociological and economic perspectives. The RuralEconomics Division in the Faculty of Economics probablywas the most sociological in orientation. (For an in-formative but critical account of the Faculty of Economicsand Administration at the University of Malaya, see DavidLim 1974.)

Another group of scholars with a sociological orien-tation was associated with the Departments of Malay,Chinese, and Indian Studies in the Faculty of Arts atthe University of Malaya. While these three departmentswere as much in the humanistic tradition as the socialsciences, a number of faculty members were sociologists.

It was not until the late 1960s that sociology becamea separate discipline in Malaysi&n universities. In 1968,a Sociology Department was formed in the University ofSingapore (Weldon 1973) In 1969, the School of Compara-tive Social Sciences at the new Universiti Sains inPenang opened with a Department of Sociology. A Depart-ment of Sociology and Anthropology at Universiti Kebangsaan

Sociology

followed in 1970. In 1971 a Department of Sociology andAnthropology was created in the Faculty of Arts at theUniversity of Malaya (Kahar Bador 1973:133).

this recent recognition of sociology as a separatediscipline in Malaysia should give considerable impetusto the development of the field in the coming years.There is already a demand for Malaysians (rather than

temporary expatriates) with postgraduate degrees to staffthese departments. Additionally, there will be (and pro-bably already is) a growing discontent with textbooks fromabroad with little Malaysian content. This attitude, inturn, should stimulate support for additional sociologicalresearch.

One sign of these current developments is the grow-ing periodical literature with sociological content.There are several publication series of research reports,discussion papers, and monographs issued by the Centerfor Policy Research at Universiti Sains. The Directorof the Center for Policy Research is K. J. Ratnam, polit-ical scientist and former dean of the School of Compara-tive Social Sciences. Additionally, two of the new de-partments of sociology and anthropology have establishedjournals: Jernal Antropoloji dan Sosiologi (UniversitiKebangsaan) and Manusia dan Masjarakat (University ofMalaya). In fact, the number of social science periodicalspublished in Malaysia and Singapore is impressive. (Aselective list of the major journals is given in AppendixI.)

In reviewing the contents of these journals andother publications from Malaysian social scientists, sometentative generalizations can be made about the natureand development of sociological studies (and the social’sciences in general) in Malaysia, (for an earlier account,see Freedman and Swift 1959.)

First, the institutional development of the Facultyof Economics and Administration at the University ofMalaya has meant that economics has become the major socialscience discipline in the country. Perhaps the need foreconomists and administrators for development objectivesor the personal influence of Ungku Aziz has led to thegrowth of this discipline in Malaysia relative to thesocial sciences. In any case, the field of economics in

sociology

Malaysia has not been ^^rphrc’patSm’B88^ ^True-national development. ^"^Ushed in the Malayan

ture of society are ^"l^^ Malaysia. ^ wwvEconomic Review and Kajia.E^ academic meetings in the

conventions (perhaps the W^J. Association attracts^tion) of the Malaysian Econ0^^. ^or these roaW.

academics from all the 80cia1 ^ S other 80cial s<:Se development of ^i010^ ^"^hado- of econaoic^ces) ^.Tf^--6"^ ^san by Malayaian e

^r^van’t ^biological themes.

second, most of the^^^^?.at Malaysian ""^"^^^"w^ch^llustrate Bocio-

of the articles are eitSl eaiS e"^lea or ^^^^^^’^^^^^^la^co^it^^^^^:rr::^^^^^ ^8and geography) has ^n Mte q^^ national cenuesociological d^a ^^^ excited.and surveys, that nave

^ situation P-/^Lr^s^^:h"chl^ceof the British school ^^^^ the United.uch less q^^^^^e^S^ne rapid developStates. Perhaps, it ^ ^-^thropology departmentsof the curriculum in socio-^y~-..,aes in statisticsIc’h has only slowly ^>^^ to be a percentand research methods. This " ^ example, the

^"^^\:L^: "^^^^^^^^^^^E":^^^^--- "Malaysian universities.

. final generali^ion ^^^^i^^social science P^^ ^Sb^Tiaysian go^-ent.the academic social science8 an. the great interest of

One reason for this ^^w ^4^ general neglect of

academics in policy q^0118* "1- social science) V:he academic cc-unity (bu^ ^^ ^^ ^ the

government policyBakers. Other cri

Sociology

government’s distrust of most academic critics and thepossible retaliation some government officials may takeagainst social scientists they believe endanger the es-tablished social order, since these are vital issues inunderstanding the development of Malaysian social science,each is now discussed at length.

Malaysian Social Scientists and Government Policy-Making

The Malaysian government has not been reluctant toseek outside advice in the formulation of policy, es-pecially in the area of development. Technical assistanceand advisors from the United Nations, international agen-cies, foundations, and other foreign sources frequentlyhave been consulted by many government agencies. Thisreliance on foreign "experts" probably has been roost sig-nificant in the area of development planning through theEconomic Planning Unit (in the Prime Minister’s Depart-ment) and in the construction of several regional masterplans, e.g. Johor Tenggara, Pahang Tenggara, etc. Witha few exceptions, most Malaysian academic social scien-tists have had only minimal roles in these activities.This situation has led to considerable resentment in theacademic community (Lim 1974) When the government hasused Malaysian social scientists in policy-making, ithas employed them generally as civil servants ratherthan borrowing them from the universities. The MalaysianCentre for Development Studies is an example of a govern-ment agency that conducts and publishes sociologicalstudies in the area of development. (See their bi-annualpublication, Developmental Forum.) Additionally, socio-logists (and other social scientists) with masters degreesare employed in a variety of other governmental and semi-governmental agencies. While this strategy is the mostefficient from the government’s point of view. it precludesthe opportunity for Malaysian social scientists to havea significant input into policy-making while retainingtheir university positions.

Government Distrust of tha University Critics

A second source of discontent of Malaysian socialscientists in academia is the threat and occasional useof governmental power to restrict freedom of expression.From the British period, the government has inheritedpowers of detention without trial and other restrictive

Sociology

S^^^^^--n,. ---t-nt. to th. ~n.Ut.tlon ^n "^roh1^

conduct research on sensitive issues.

lication, it is clear that academics with radical loeaa

mignt easily incur the government’s disfavor.

^ese severe steps took place at time vhen ^seemed that some sociologists were ^^^ ^^Ser.ideas that were critical of the P^1^ 3^.^^

international capitalism as a primary cause of poverty ana

Sociology

inequality, some Malaysian sociologists ware openlycritical of current policies.

In spite of the government’s restrictions on theuniversities, it is doubtful that there will be a rever-sal of this recent trend towards a critical social sciencethat questions the conservative assumptions that underpina capitalist model of development. The overseas post-graduate training of many young social scientists hasexposed them to the leading social science theories inthe United States and other countries. Within sociology,the emergence of dependency theories (Cockcroft, Prank,and Johnaon 1972; Oxxal, Bamett, and Booth 1975) andthe world system perspective (Wallerstein 1974) is certainto influence Malaysian academics.

The rest of this chapter reviews several currents ofsociological research on Malaysia, first, some selected(and neglected) topics in the historical development ofMalaysia are discussed. Second, ethnic inequality, and,finally, recent research on policy questions are examined.

Sociological Studies of Historical Development

Malaysian history has not followed a linear course.The rise and fall of various indigenous empires, thewaves of European colonial penetration, and fche transfor-mation of a subsistence economy into the world’s leadingproducer of rubber and tin all have combined to make fora complicated past that does not lend itself to succinctgeneralization. There are a number of standard historicalworks on Malaysia (Ryan 1970; Kennedy 1965). but mosttend to be written from a Eurocentric point of view witha focus on political issues and events. (For a more in-sightful historical survey, see the Malaysia parts ofSteinberg, ed. 1972.)

The underlying social and economic processes thathave transformed a sparsely settled feudal society intoa relatively modem nation over the past 100 years andthe impact of these immense changes on the lives of thepeoples of Malaysia have been neglected areas of historicalscholarship. For example, there is no standard work onthe economic history of Malaysia, although Lim Chong-Yah(1967) and David Lim (1973) survey the main outlines ofthe economic and social structure. Li Dun-Jen (1955)

Sociology

offers one of the few critical appraisals of the economic

s^se.^^-^-xceptlon being vott <1WI.

n.n.itllv hoever, one rust tetrch the (ugltif

IU..S^ " lo^e .oclolo,lc.lly ">^v"t "^^.^u,. u.^ic.i ^:T^ 23"thJ: ^:.SL.^l?^^ ^y^’y

23SS\’.TS^^haustive.

Origins of the Plural Society

. s.s-.i-s-.sss -sas’r;:-^’

the growth and development of the plural so y

sia. (For an overview of issues, see Freedman I960.)

prior to the advent of British colonial rule’ anly

impressionistic evidence is available on the ^ ^composition of the population. However it ^ ^^certain that contacts, tradera. and even aettl^JTOBIndia and China came to the H^18" ^"yearsnany centuries, dating back at least 1.000 years

irl^ iq&4, purcell 1948) The strong impact of inaian

c^ization on MaLy culture is easily recognized.

But the real plural society was a creation of ttle-

ssi^r^^ssisrtion of Chinese to Malaysia. In-nigrants from India began

10 Sociology

to arrive in significant numbers in the last two dec-ades of the 19th century, but the major influx wasduring the first two decades of the 20th century(Sandhu 1969:312-313). Immigrants from the DutchEast Indies (Indonesia) were less well monitored.(Also see Smith 1952; and Shamsul 1960.)

The salient topics for research on immigrationto Malaysia include: (1) the impact of immigrationand emigration on population growth and composition;(2) the social and economic causes of immigration;(3) the social history of recruitment of immigrantsand of the immigrant communities; and (4) the spatialand social segregation of the immigrant communitiesfrom one another. Cr> all these issues, there is someliterature, although additional research is neededusing existing sources, e.g. census data, historicaldocuments, and records.

The link between immigration and population sizeand composition is complicated by the fact that therewas also a sizeable flow of emigrants. In fact, mostimmigrants probably did return to their homelandsafter a fairly short stay in the peninsula (Farmer1960:17) Yet we have little quantitative evidence onthe magnitude of return-migration. National censusdata since 1911 documents well the growth of therelative numbers of Malays, Chinese, and Indians inMalaysia. (See the first table in every issue of thegovernment publication, Monthly Statistical Bulletinand Chander 1977; Fell 1960.) By 1911 Malays wereless than 60 percent of the total population ofPeninsular Malaysia. Therefore the origins of theplural society had occurred before national census datawere collected. Even with the limitations of theavailable data, there are considerable opportunitiesfor historical demographic investigation on the mag-nitude and consequences of immigration on populationchange and composition.

The demand for labor in tin mining and, later,the rubber plantations, provided the stimulus formigration from China, India, and the Dutch East Indies.The mechanisms and processes of the transference oflabor--yonits free and aonie coerced-’acroas interna-

11Sociology

tional boundaries have been discussed by Plythe (1947).

Saw ^?" and Sandhu (1969). A3 ^P68" 0010"1-

^^S^S---

^1:31^1.. t~. the .lt.tlon. ’*".^^^r.^;^ln.^s-

search project.

while the history of the development of the plan-

;".S:"-rs- ^;="-;;SH:=--s.".-s--;’si..= ^""s^Tssr-^^HS^-.^;1==S;S:".^.

How did a fairly small country absorb so many

^.r^^r^^^^^^^^sy^^"-^^^^^^^^^^S’^^^L^t^^^.xr^-^ ^nS^^^.1^""10"-E^^2^?^2-"r^r.:^"^-^T^^.S,SL- ^;r^L":^-.

12Sociology

The Baba Chinese, descendants of early Chinese immi-grants to Malaysia, intermarried with Malays andadopted their dress, cuisine, and considerable Malayculture. Although the Baba community is still presentin Malaysia, it has been suggested that this processof assimilation of the Chinese community was reversedwhen the huge number of Chinese immigrants arrived inthe latter part of the 19th century (Freedman 1955)there has not been, to my knowledge, any detailedexamination of this hypothesis, or of the magnitudeof the Baba Chinese community.

Another factor that may have encouraged ethnicseonentation was the policies and attitudes of thecolonial government (Chan 1977) By treating theChinese and Indians as temporary sojoumers, yetencouraging their immigration and settlement, many ofthe seeds for the basic problems of today were sownDifferent policies in education, government employ-"ment access to land. as well as informal practices.led to ethnic isolation (and also some animosity) thatcould not be indefinitely maintained. These questionsand more remain to be more fully researched.

Development of the Export EconomyCoincident with the major wave of immigration tothe peninsula, Malaysia’s economy was transformedfrom a subsistence base with some minor trading, tothe world’s largest producer of tin and natural

rubber; "le3e devexoPInents "ot only required adequatecheap labor, but large amounts of capital, fairly

accL^t^r68?0 ^nd internatio"l organization, andaccess to land and freedom of operations in Malaysia.All of these conditions were made possible by theexpansion of the world capitalist system and thespread of colonialism to areas of primary production.As the industrial revolution spread in the West, thedemand for raw materials grew. In large measure, theorowth of production and trade in non-European countrieswas organized by Europeans. Not only did thesedevelopments further the wealth and power of Westerninterests, but they also transfor-ned the socio-economic structures of peripherial countries. (Foradditional background on these themes, see Wallerstein1974 and Gcertz 1963.

Sociology 13

In Malaysia, the physical landscape and social

structure were transformed by these events. Capital’intensive tin mines and agricultural plantationsdotted the country, especially along the west coast.political power shifted from the weak feudal power of

the Malay sultanate to the colonial bureaucracy.While the bulk of these changes were felt in foreigndominated export enclaves and the towns of the country,the entire society was affected. To some extent,market activities entered all but the most remoteareas. Large numbers of Malay peasants entered the

export sector as wage laborers or smallholder growersof export crops. These changes have been described

only partially in the literature. (For the best

general economic survey, see Lin Chong-Yah 1967.Other gemeral references on the Malaysian economyinclude the International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development 1955 Silcock 196 la, 196Ib, 1963a Silcockand Fisk 1963; Sumitro 1969; and Kanapathy 1970a.

The roost comprehensive work to data on the rubberindustry has been John H. Drabble *s Rubber in Halaya:1B76-1922: The Genesis of the Industry (1973) The

major source on the development of the tin industry is

Yip Yat-Hoong’s encyclopedic book (1969) The rarelycited book by Li Dun-Jen (1955) *is one of the few

general attenpts at economic history. There is also

an emerging literature on the reinterpretation ofMalaysian economic and political history from a radi-cal perspective (Amin and Caldwell 1977,- Bach 1976Chain 1975, 1977).

The role of foreign enterprise in the transform-ation of the Malaysian economy, and its continueddominance, is a neglected topic. A largely des-

criptive account is provided by Alien and Oonnithome(1957) The most critical analysis has been byJ. J. Puthucheary (1960) who wrote his book while inprison. There are considerable opportunities for re-search on the dynamics of economic transformation of

colonial Malays and its legacy to the contemporarysociety.

The Role of the Colonial Government

The role and actions of the state ace rarelyanalyzed in the social science literature, includingthat of sociology. In any contemporary developingcountry, this omission is less often encountered.The government is not only the primary mobilizer ofresources for development, but its policies are under-

stood to provide the environment that conditions allother social relations. This viewpoint is needed tounderstand the historical development of Malaysia.Much of the literature on the history of Malaysiafocuses upon the government, its formal structures,the changes of personnel, and its overall character"istics. But less attention has been paid to the waysin which colonial policy shaped the nature of societyand the differential opportunities accorded variousethnic and social groups of the population.

For instance, it is recognized that the colonialgovernment favored the British colonial capitalists atthe expense of any indigenous entreprenuerial class(Drabble 1973; Yip 1969) However, other policiesare thought to have been fair or perhaps protective ofdisadvanfcaged groups in society (especially regardingthe Malay community). Closer examination of thistopic is required to distinguish between myth andreality. For instance, there is a great deal ofevidence to argue that British educational policiesboth inhibited the entry of Malays into the modernsector (Hirschnan 1972; Roff 1967; Chang 1973) as wellas encouraged ethnic segmentation. A less successfulcolonial policy, encouraged by the Malay aristocracy,was to prevent the Malay peasantry from engaging insmallholding rubber, a more economically remunerativecrop than rice (Drabble 1973; Rudner 1970a). Onemight conclude that the poorer economic plight of theMalay community was as much a product of colonialpolicy as their feudal-agrarian origins.

Similarly the fiscal policies of the colonialgovernment are a neglected topic. While one mightsuppose that the public investments in roads, schools,and hospitals were due to the wealth provided byrubber and tin, it is surprising to note that theleading source of government revenue during the earlydecades of colonial rule was the tax on opium smoked

by Chinese laborers (Li 1955) The colonial govern-ment did not discourayn opium smokiny. In fact, after3tii<]y)rrj thf- problem, t-lu." (jowrnmont ^c:ci>V2d t-liiit.

opium was not that harmful and made its distribution

and retailing a government monopoly CU 19S5).

perhaps the most detailed analyses of the colon-

ial government policies and their impact on soc^yhave been a series of studies by Martin Rudner (1970b,

1971. 1972; l975a; 1975b; 1976a< 1976b) Rudner looks

at the formulation of policy to see what interests in

society favored or opposed it. He then examines the

socio-economic consequences for society and for

different social and economic groups. Rudner a

writings elucidate the inherent dilemma in colonial

policy-making, the interest in maintaining the status

quo (which favors the dominant social classes, par-

ticularly colonial elites and capitalists) versus the

need for an energetic public sector which is actively

mobilizing resources for development. This dilemma

was particularly acute in post-war colonial Malaya

when developmental goals were a more serious obliga-

tion. The "Bnergency" also put the legitimacy of the

colonial government into doubt. Fortuitously, the

boom in rubber prices caused by the Korean War made it

possible for the government to achieve several goals

at once (Stubbs 1974)

The study of the colonial government’s policies

is not only of historical interest. Ihe impact of

colonial policies and thinking still has marked.

though lessening, impact- on contemporary Malaysia.

To see the past more clearly is essential to under-

stand better the present.

Studies or Ethnic Inequality

Almost every scholarly work on Malaysia, not to

mention journalistic reports, discusses ethnic differ-

ences of the Malay. Chinese and Indian communities^In many cases, the focus is entirely on ethnic varia-

tions in behavior or orientations, or alternatively

the focus of the research (politics, bureaucracy, or

education) is explained in terns of ethnic factoryWhile such a preoccupation with ethnicity is unavoid-

able, given the ethnic segmentation in Malaysia, I a

skeptical that the product has led to a c""1"1^1^store of knowledge or understanding of ethnic divisions.

16Sociology

their causes, or consequences. The development of acumulative body of reseach requires theoretical under-pinning as well as observation. For instance, thereis a considerable amount of scholarship on Malaysiathat repeats popular ethnic stereotypes in academicgarb. usually these sources offer a crude theoryMa^v^T3 chinese wterPriae and ambition withMalay attachment to tradition. A certain amount ofreality accords with this view, but there is also agreat amount of contrary evidence. Moreover, thefocus on ethnic contrasts often blinds the investi-gator to within ethnic group heterogeneity which isconsiderable, it also limits the importance of otherinstitutional factors that are crucial to understandethnic patterns in Malaysia. (For an insightful essay

outclass divisions within ethnic groups, see Stenson

In this section, some of the major social scien-tific accounts (only partially by sociologists) arereviewed that measure and interpret patterns of ethnicinequality in Malaysia, ihis survey begins withstudies that have examined differencial eSnFc oattemsin a variety of demographic, socio-economic, and x^Sio" ^ ":" lme range of ^o^tical eKplana-

Pina;!?1’! account for ethnic ^"ality follows.Finally, an assessment is made of the state of empiri-cal support for the alternative theories.

Ethnic Differences and InequalityThere are two classic works on ethnic inequalityone more than a decade old. the other soon to be

y

Published. K. J. Ratnam-s Co^unallsrn and the

Political Process in Malaya (1965) is a thorough sur-

Tnll ^the hi8torical background on ethnic politicsTincluding the constitutional issues, it is an essen-Do^TT06 for an students of "^y^an ethnicLy.Donald Snodgrass-s forthcoming book. Inequality andEconomic De^lopment In Halaysia, will become theleading work on ethnic inequality in Malaysia. Itcontains a most thorough survey of the secondaryliterature as well as original empirical investigationsof income inequality and government efforts at redis-tribution.

Sociology 17

I

ma

Hie differences between the Malay, Chinese and

Indian communities are considerable in terms of resi-

dence, occupation, demographic measures, and other

social and economic characteristics. A number of

studies have documented these differences, although

there have been few investigations of changes in the

differences over the years.

The basic reference on ethnic variation in fer-

tility and population growth is T. E. Smith (1952),

although it is based entirely on the 1947 Census.

More recent analyses of family and fertility patternsby ethnic community include Caldwell (1963b), Cho et a2.

(1968), Palmore and Ariffin (1969), Palmore et al.

(1970; 1975) and Saw (1966a; 1967a; 196 7b). ’there have

been a few studies of mortality in Malaysia (Saw 1966b;1967c; Zainal and Khairuddin 1974), although none has

examined ethnic differences.

The greater urbanization of Chinese has been in-

vestigated in a number of empirical studies basedupon census date (Caldwell 1963a Cooper 1951,Hamzah 1962; 1964; 1965; 1966; Narayanan 1975; Sidhu1976; and Saw 1972). For external migration, see

Hirschman (1975b) On internal migration, see Sandhu(1964) Pryor (1974) Soon (1977) Hawley (forthcoming)McGee (1971; 1972) and Magata (1974a) A thorough bib-

liography of demographic studies is SBM and Cheng (197S).

The socio-economic differences between Malays,

Chinese, and Indians are substantial. General surveysof these differences are presented in Ma and You’s(I960) analysis of 1957 Census data and Aries’ (1971)

descriptive account based upon the 1967-68 MalaysiaSocio-economic Survey of Households. (Also see thereview articles by Mokhzani. 1965 Nagata, 1975Riaz, 1973; and Silcock, 1965.

Differential educational attainment across ethniccommunities is examined in detail in the report basedupon the Drop-out Survey conducted by Alan Wilson(Ministry of Education, Malaysia 1973; Hirschman 1972).The question of income inequality (both between andwithin ethnic communities) has become a sensitive iaauaof late. Although the available data on this question

18Sociology

^h"^^^ (more have been coue<;ted but not pub-n8hed)’,there is a 9Wing literature on the topic

19746 and\ .rschman 1974; Lim Lin L6a" 1970’- 19^.-1974; and Snodgrass-s forthcoming book). -The differ-ential participation of women in the economy is ex^alined by Jones (1965), pong (1975). and HTrschmaTand Aghajanian (1979)

In addition to the literature on differences insocio-economic characteristics between ethniccommunities ethnic factors and interests are examinedHs^li0^1^^^^ ^’S?;coc^d ^2)i^u^Lnode^, ^e968-??^^^ burcaucracy (Esnan 1972; Ness 1967, andS d^ 1 S .Most rccently there have been Temptsto describe and explain the outbreak of inter-ethnTcviolence in Kuala Lumpur after the 1969 electionsKX^ 1971; National ^rati- ^cil

h^ ’"^.-^es of ethnic differences and inequalityhave contributed to our knowledge, but the real ques-tion is how these differences can be explained.

Theories of Ethnic Inequality

ethni?ecoo^L:^te:Ttilt^n-^^^^^

^^^^^^^^Don^"^91".^1 Hechter- Stanley Ueber::".Donald Noel, and Richard Schermerhom have formulatedresearchtheorlaa that could generate cross-cultural

Sr^rent ^ ? ^ explicate or contrast these78^ ctheor in this ^BP^ ^ Hirschman,1978b). suffice to say, there is no consensus aboutthe key factors that lead to ethnic assimilation orbegnentation in different societies, ihree nudSl?-a^usefTi68 l’^rin.i theoriesl<) are Presented thatare userul in reviewing the empirical research onMalaysia. These middle-range theories po^ to^heproximate factors that maintain inequality acrossgenerations. The origins of ethnic inequality and

Sociology 19

1

;1

I!*

n

IIH3i-i

?’3-a

?*Q

causes of changes in social institutions are topicsbeyond the scope of these middle-range theories.

these three theories or hypotheses axe labeled:(1) the social origins hypothesis; (2) the culturalvalues hypothesis; and (3) the discrimination hypoth-esis.

Social Origins Hypothesis

The social origins hypothesis posits that ethnicinequality in the present generation is a result ofdifferential characteristics of the parents (social

origins) of the previous generation. For instance,consider the proportions of each ethnic community inthe agricultural sector. Cue can assume that the sonof a farmer in all ethnic communities has an equalchance for leaving the agricultural sector (socialmobility), but one ethnic group may have a largershare in agriculture because of their higher propor-tion of parents in agriculture. Over the long term,equal mobility patterns will result in equal occu-pational structures across ethnic communities.However, for one or two generations, unequal socialorigins may result in ethnic inequality even withequal prospects of social mobility. The social

origins hypothesis is one not generally diacusaed inStudies Of inequality in Malaysia, although it isimplicitly recognized that there is a lag betweensocial change and its consequences.

Cultural Values Hypothesis

A leading theory of ethnic inequality in Malaysiais the cultural values hypothesis. This perspectiveclaims that inequality results from differentialvalues toward achievement that are part of the cul-ture of each ethnic group. For instance, the higherlevels of economic success among the Chinese inMalaysia are attributed to Chinese values that includethrift, business acumen, and social prestige accordedto the successful individuals, "the basics of thisperspective are akin to Max Weber’s ideas on the linkbetween the "Protestant ethic and the spirit ofcapitalism." Additionally, the social-psychologicaltheories of navid McClelland (on the "need for

20Sociology

achievement") and Alex Inkeles (on "noderr.ity") aresimilar to the basic mechanism in the cultural valuestheory of ethnic inequality. According to thistheory, the lesser socio-economic success of theMalay community would be explained by their tradi-tional culture which lacks values of achievement.

The Discrimination Hypothesis

The third theory is similar to the second inthat differential social mobility is the basic mech-anism that maintains ethnic inequality across gen-erations. However, the presumed causes are differentin the discrimination hypothesis. It is not thedifferential aspirations and ambitions of ethnicgroups that maintain inequality, but their differ-ential treatment by gatekeepers in the social system.While discrimination has the connotations of in-vidious behavior, it may be a preference of an em-ployer to hire a family member over a stranger whosemother tongue is different. But no matter what themotive, discrimination will result in unequal rewardsfor equal qualifications and serve to maintain ethnicinequality across generations.

With these alternative theories as a conceptualbackground, the arguments and evidence that have beenconsidered in research on Malaysia are analyzed.

The Debate Over the Causes of Ethnic Inequality InMalaysia

The most popular theory, in Malaysian publicopinion as well as among academic observers ofMalaysia, is the cultural values hypothesis, thisinterpretation can be found in any number of ana-lytical and descriptive studies of Malaysia.

they (Malays) have a great deal ofnative charm, a simple way of life and aconcept of leisure which is likely to beoperative through any part of a 24-hourperiod (Wlkkramatileke 196436).

Sociology 21

L2aiSnr:’l

K

Itie average Chinese in the Federa-tion is a tolerant individual, particu-larly if he is not unduly regimented infurthering his commercial aims, and thenative Malay, by virtue of his com-

placency and his simple way of life, hasyet to lose his ability to shrug offeconomic tensions (Wikkramatileke 1964:42).

Malay values give the highest pri-ority to getting along with others, and

Malay social behavior is concerned withways of showing mutual respect betweenpersons according to a carefully cali-brated scale of social status, withhighest status given to a traditionalhereditary ruling group. Chinese valuesare primarily orientated toward contrib-uting to the success and prestige of thepatrilineal family, with effective com-petition and skill at accumulatingwealth receiving the greatest social re-wards (Henderson 1970:249).

Most of the Malays were peasants andfishermen. Their environment was not con-ducive to education and their culture didnot induce them to want it (Silcock 196 3a<26).

These statements range from the simplistic tothe sophisticated. But the implication is clear thatMalays are less successful in the economic sphere be-cause their cultural values are deficient, the re-verse is true for Chinese values. The strongeststatement of this hypothesis is in an essay by anaconomist, Brien Paritinson (1967). He credits theorigination of his hypothesis to "some anthropologist*and European scholars of the Malay Language" whichhe expresses as,

a contributory cause of the Malaya*economic stagnation is their attitude

22 Sociology

toward economic development. Malayahave been generally resistant to changeand have. in consequence, been unwilling toadapt their lives to modern conditionsand techniques (1967:32. Emphasis is inthe original!.

Parkinson goes on to argue his case and makes anumber of specific points; 1) Malay fanners arereluctant to innovate and try double-cropping of rice;2 Malays have generally opposed cooperatives andprefer traditional methods of raising credit;3) Malays traditionally were uninterested in formaleducation, although not today; 4) Malays resist anychange that is incompatible with traditional life ortheir religio-mystic beliefs; 5) Malays are fatal-istic. 6) Malays prefer the security of governmentemployment to other vocation; and 7) Malays are re-luctant to leave their villages to live in the cities.

In support of these rather strong assertations,Parkinson offers no original data. He cites colonialobservers of Malay society such as Wilkinson and thework of social anthropologists such as Raymond Firth,M. G. Swift, and Maurice Freedman. Parkinson’sarticle brought a sharp critique from an anthropolo-gist. William Wilder (1968), which was followed bya reply from Parkinson (1968) The exchange was avitriolic with no obvious winner, wilder chargedParkinson with selective use of sources and offeredcounter-observations based upon his anthropologicalfield work in Pahang. Parkinson retreated a bit. andadmitted that contemporary Malay society may bechanging from his general observations. Generallyhe stuck to his position and charged that Wildermisquoted or misunderstood him.

To evaluate the cultural values hypothesis ofParkinson and others, the empirical literature isreviewed on three relevant topics; 1) the responseof the Malay peasantry to economic opportunities?2) ethnic variations in educational achievement; and3) recent multivariata studies of occupational andincome stratification by ethnic communities, in eachcase, the relative strengths of the cultural values

Sociology 23

hypothesis relative to the two alternative theoriesof differential social origins and discriminationare examined.

Malay peasantry and Economic Opportunities

There are two aspects to the question of

whether Malay fanners are resistant to change (ormore resistant to change than other ethnic communi-ties). One is the historical issue: Why did Malaysnot leave traditional agriculture in the early partof the 20th century to enter wage labor in the plan-tations, mines and towns? The second aspect iswhether Malay farmers of today are reluctant to trynew technological methods or are as efficient intheir practices as non-Malay agriculturists. Weconsider first the historical question.

It is true that roost Malays did not rush for-ward to become laborers in the early tin mines andon the rubber plantations of British Malaya. Thismeant that the British (and Chinese) capitalistshad to seek laborers in China, India, and the DutchEast Indies. The reluctance of indigenous peoplesto work in export enclaves is a world-wide phenome-non, and has been accorded the title of an economicconcept, "the backward bending supply of labor." Theassumption of this concept (and the usual colonialinterpretation) was that the Malay population pre-ferred leisure to the higher income of wage employ-ment. The assumption of higher real incomes in wageemployment (relative to traditional village agri-culture) is doubtful. If the accounts of Jackson(1961) and Biythe (1947) on the living conditionsand compensation of Chinese and Indian laborers onestates and mines are true, one wonders why. anyMalays chose to enter this sector. It seems areasonable proposition that mortality levels andaverage levels of real compensation (and personalfreedom) were better in Malay villages than in theearly European-owned mines and estates. The Malayswho did choose to become laborers must have had fewalternatives, or were economically irrational. (Fora similar argument, see Lim Chong-Yah l967ill5, 122.)

24Sociology

However, there is evidence that the rural Malavpeasantry did respond to real economic oppor^unSnamely in the large-scale innovation of smallh^ldinq’SrabblV^/’1 the 20th -"^ <- ^"er ^t"9^ab

^ L ett ia no q"88^0" that rubber al-ways has been a more profitable crop than rice forMalay fanners. Uneducated and isolated Malay farmerswere aware of this opportunity. The obstacles ?o"Sinnovation of rubber production were considerableSanteT ^ ^be, cleared- After the seeda ^Planted, it took six to sewn years until the treesbegan to produce latex, (m sociological parlance

Since^T con3i<terable deferred 9"t"ica;in r’Since rubber is not a consumable product, small-holders had to enter the market to sell their productnot a small step for many peasants.

Moreover, the whole process of acquiring the

^^^^^T^^^^^^^^r^SiS^:^.^groups wished to maintain the Malay community.without exposing it to the commercial world ^hat wastransforming the country. l^ws were passed to ?;"vent the transference of rice lands to rubber, anarrom T^r Generally discouraged Malay fannersfrom planting rubber smallholdings. By 1947one-quarter of all Malay male fanners said rubber wastheir primary crop (Del Tufo 1949: 78-87), and a^rge number may have grown rubber as a minor crop

econo1? T a sign of a P^^t^ ""interested ineconomic improvement.

ineffi^ ^^W^ ^lay fanners? Are theychan^ r rmera and ""^rested in technologicalrarm9^ 7^ their liveli"<x’^ While mostfarmers are fairly conservative in the short run.i^erZ^""11 econoni8ta te-O. Clifford Wharton)interpret this as the avoidance of risk-taking for

^ubs^tence-lev.1 farmers. For those who live9 withlittle or no margin above subsistence needs, the

l^fT’ a

^ seed variety win not w^ ^ therisk of borrowing money for new agricultural inputsare too g.eat to take. However, policies that cover

Sociology 25

a

some of the risks for farmers with agricultural ex-

tension services, access to credit, and subsidies

appear to allow agricultural innovation to take placefairly quickly. The Third Malaysia Plan reportsthat the area under double-cropping grew by over

60 percent from 1970 to 1975 in Peninsular Malaysia

and yields per acre also increased (Malaysia 1976:295) Of course, the basis for such changes is the

tremendous government investment in irrigation facil-ities. Yet the cooperation and efforts of fannerswere also essential ingredients.

A recent article compared the economic perform-ance of Malay and Chinese rice fanners in Malaysia,and found that the latter had yields about 25 percentgreater per acre than the former fanners (Huang 1974).

Huang offers as a partial explanation ".. .the greaterinnovativeness and profit orientation of the immigrant(Chinese) groups" (1974tl85), However, a close read-ing of the author’s evidence shows other possibleinterpretations. One reason for the greater product-ivity of Chinese fanners was their higher inputs.eapecially hired labor and tractors, which raisedthe costs of production. The ethnic difference innet value or profit is only about 12 percent, halfof the yield difference (Huang 1974:180). Anotherfactor was that two-thirds of the Malay fanners hadsecond jobs (off their own farms), while less thanone-third of the Chinese fanners did. While thedifferential farm productivity may suggest thatMalays were slightly less efficient than the Chinesefanners, their higher proportion with extra jobs maysuggest that Malay fanners are even more acquisitive-minded. To conclude, there is little empirical sup-port for the thesis that the Malay peasantry are un-

interested in socio-economic change if it offers arealistic prospect for a better life.

Education and Ethnicity

The main points in the relevant literature oneducational patterns by ethnicity in Malaysia can beaummarized quickly. Chinese and Indian educationalattainment traditionally have exceeded those of theMalay community. But is this difference due to lesser

26 Sociology

Malay aspiration and interest in education or to thefewer educational opportunities? Until after In-dependence, most secondary schools were in urbanareas where Malays were less likely to live. Anadditional factor was that English primary schoolingwas almost a prerequisite for entry into secondaryschool. -Since English primary schools were alsoconcentrated in towns and cities, this was anotherdisadvantage for the predominately rural Malay pop-ulation.

Cue way to address this question is to dividethe educational attainment ladder into stages thatwould allow for separate investigation of steps whichcan be identified as related to accessibility(Hirschman 1972, 1979). por instance, one can labelthe steps of entry into primary school and the trans-ition from primary to secondary school (Standard 6 toForm 1) as those that are heavily influenced by thenearness of schools (accessibility). The process ofcontinuing from the beginning to the end of primaryschool and from lower secondary to middle secondarywould be stages that are only affected by interestand ability in schooling. When one decomposed theeducational process in this manner, almost all ofthe lower attainment of Malay students during thecolonial era can be related to the problem of access-ibility of schools (Hirschman 1972) A recent anal-ysis. based upon the same strategy with 1970 Censusdata, shows that almost all of the Malay-Chinese-Indian differences in educational attainment hawbeen eliminated for the youngest cohorts, whose ed-ucation was in the post-Independence era when schoolingwas more freely accessible (Hirschman 1979). Anotherempirical study controls for differences in rural-urban birthplace and father’s occupation (measure ofsocio-economic status). It finds that the Malay-Chinese gap in educational attainment is reduced by80 percent (Hirschman 1975a;59-61)

In contrast to the cultural values hypothesis,actual measurement of aspirations has found thatMalay students have higher educational and occupa-tional expectations than Chinese youth (Takei, Bock,and Saunders 1973: Wilson 1977)

Sociol09y 27

IIki

^

These statements do not mean that all ethnicdifferences in education have been eliminated.Malay youth do less well than the Chinese in nationalexams, and have been traditionally concentrated inthe humanistic, rather than the acientific disciplinesin the universities (Wang 1977). But these differ-ences do not seem to be explicable in terms ofdifferential cultural values or in terns of thearchaic biological theory of genetic differences be-tween ethnic groups (Mahathir 1970) Since discrimi-nation is also an unlikely explanation in educationalinstitutions where merit can be objectively measured,the social origins hypothesis seems moat convincing(Hirschman 1972; 1975a)

Ethnic Occupational and Income Variations

The final topic is the ethnic variation inoccupational and income attainment. All Malaysiancensus and survey data show substantial differencesin the occupational composition between the ethniccommunities. A much higher fraction of Malays isconcentrated in the agricultural sector, whileChinese have a much more diversified occupationalstructure, with substantial fractions in sales andskilled blue collar occupations. Indians are inter-mediate between Malays and Chinese. Trend analysesof the occupational differences are limited becauseof methodological problems in comparing differentdata sources. Yet some studies show only a modestnarrowing of ethnic occupational differentials overthe last few decades (Hirschman l975a: Chapter 3)The studies of ethnic differences in income show awide gap and no sign of narrowing (Lim Lin-ijsan 1974.I&e 1977 Snodgrass, forthcoming).

In a direct test of the social origins hypothe-sis, the magnitude of ethnic inequality in occupa-tional and income attainment was examined among asurvey sample of adult married men (Hirschman l975a;l976b). Almost two-thirds of the income differencebetween Malay and Chinese males could be explainedby differential social backgrounds, particularlyfather’s occupation and birthplace. This leaves asnail income gap that could potentially be explained

28 Sociology

by cultural values or discrimination.

The patterns of ethnic inequality in occu-pations were more complex. For most white collaroccupations (professional and clerical)ethnic differences were at negligible levels whensocial origins were controlled. But in sales andcraft occupations, Chinese had a significant advan-tage over Malays with all relevant social backgroundvariables controlled. How can these variations beexplained?

It appears that most of the Malay disadvantagein socio-economic characterestics (education,occupation, and income) is because they come dis-proportionately from rural-agrarian origins. Andsince a rural-agrarian background is a handicap,Malays are the most disadvantaged. with equivalentsocial backgrounds Malays do about as well as theChinese and Indians.

But in two occupational groups, social back-ground seems to be less Important than ethnicity.These two occupations are sales and crafts. Forthese two sectors, we are left with either the cul-tural values or discrimination hypothesis. I leantowards the discrimination explanation for the fol-lowing reasons. Sales and craft occupations pre-dominate in what might be called the small shopsector. The small shop sector includes retail enter-prises and small-scale manufacturing and repairestablishments. These businesses are largely ownedand managed by Chinese and Indian entreprenuers.Employees primarily are members of the owner’s ex-tended families. This made it difficult if not im-possible until recently for Malays to enter theseoccupations, unless they are entreprenuers themselves.

To reconsider the alternative theories of ethnicinequality in Malaysia, the empirical literature tendsto weigh most heavily against the cultural valueshypothesis. (This does not mean there are no cul-tural differences between ethnic communities, butonly that these differences do not explainmost of the wide socio-economic variations. While

ii;.3

yr<K

i.’i

I;.

i.i

I)M!!3.<

I^;31"tKl^

Sociology 29

the social origins hypothesis seems to be the mostcredible, there is a modest support for the dis-crimination hypothesis. The final word on the

questions raised in this section are yet to be heard.tesearch needed to test the alternative theories isonly beginning, and there will be more to add tothese observations in a few years. All of the studiesreviewed in this chapter pertain to the pre-1970period. How the New Economic Policy and its explicittargets have restructured society have not been re-searched.

Recent Research On Public Policy Questions

Most social science research has relevance, ifonly implicitly, for policy issues. But the findingsof research are rarely translated into the arena ofpolicy-makers, particularly for use in the formula-tion of policy. The reasons for this situation acebeyond the scope of this chapter. Suffice to saythat institutional politics not only has its ownsources of information, but they are based upon in-terest group bargaining. This is an area to whichdisinterested researchers rarely have entry.

This does not mean that research will not beconcerned with policy issues. In fact, policy ques-tions may be the single most significant factor instimulating social science research. This is espec-ially true in developing cointries such as Malaysiawhere the government is seen to be the prime mobilizerof resources and manpower. Much of public policy inMalaysia is formalized in the documents of the five-year plans (and the mid-term reviews) which statenational priorities and the designated strategies toachieve them.

Iteaction to development plans have often beenthe focus of social scientists in Malaysia. For anumber of years, an annual symposium. The GreatEconomic Debates, was held at the Faculty of Econom-ics and Administration of the University of Malaya.The papers were later published in Ekonomi. Most re-cently the annual conventions of the MalayaianEconomics Association focus upon a theme related todevelopmental policy. The proceedings of these con-

30 Sociology

ventiona are published by the Malaysian Economics

Association. (See Chee and ?00 1975.)

With the publication of the second MalaysiaPlan (Malaysia 1971) the government made explicitthe two objectives; 1) restructuring society to

eliminate the association of economic roles and race

(ethnicity) and 2) the elimination of poverty in

all communities. These redistributive goals were to

be as important as the objective of rapid economic

development. These bold policies have also servedto focus much of recent social scie.noe research in

Malaysia.

In the final section of this chapter, a reviewis offered of some recent studies on two generalpolicy themes: 1) the basic strategy for socio-economic development; and 2) government plans toeradicate poverty and restructure society, withinthese broad topics, only selected questions and

their presence in the literature are discussed.

Policies for Socio-Economic Development

After Independence in 1957 Malaysia (Malaya)pursued economic development in a basically laissez-faire strategy, albeit with an active public sector(Ness 1964; Silcock 1963b, Rudnar 1971; 1975a).The role of the government was to provide physicalinfrastructure (roads, harbors, and telecommunica-tions), and generally to expand the investment inhuman resources through educational and health pro-grams. The one area of direct government involve-

ment was in rural development. (For the classicaccount see Mess 1967.) The government attempted inthis area to bring some aspects of modern life to

rural villages (water, electricity, and roads)

and also to open large tracts of land for agri-cultural (rubber and oil palm) settlement by landless

peasants.

The actual record of economic development duringthis period (1957-1970) must be judged a success on

most traditional measures (Kaspar 1974). Economic

growth averaged about six percent per annum, which

Sociology31

Ha

M

meant a per-capita growth of about three percent per

year (Hirschman 1974). Additionally there was con-

siderable economic diversification during this period

with the expansion of agricultural crops other than

rubber and fairly rapid growth in the manufacturing

sector (David Lim 1973).

Other signs of progress between 1957-1970 in-

elude the reductions in mortality and fertility, and

rapid population growth began to decline (0o,

palmore. and Saunders 1968, Palmore, Chander. and

Eternandez 1975; Hirschman 1978a). Although the

fertility decline began before the national family

planning program started in 1967. there is evidence

that the program is effective (Johnson, Tan, and

Corsa 1973).

But there are signs of slow progress in other

areas. Unemployment and the problem of labor under-

utilization in general remain major issues (David Lim

1973. Chapter 9; Blake 1973; for evidence on rural

underemployment, see Purcal 1965; 1971) The basic

problems of ethnic inequality and income distribution

were unresolved and perhaps worsened (David Lim 1973;

Chapter 10; Lim Lin lean 1974; Hirschman 1974) The

pace of urbanization during this period was remark-

ably slow (Pryor 1973, Marayanan 1975; Hirschman

1976a). Finally, there appears to have been a sig-

nificant amount of emigration (Hirschman 1975b)

Some have argued that more dynamic policies with

a stronger focus on export industrialization would

yield higher economic growth rates (Kaspar 1973)

There are considerable opportunities for expansion

of public spending by Malaysian policy-makers. In

contrast to most developing countries, there does not

appear to be a shortage of domestic capital for in-

vestment in Malaysia (Drake 1969). But the real

question of how to best mobilize both private and

public resources for development is disputed.

The heavy reliance on foreign investment is one

issue that has drawn considerable attention. Through

a variety of incentives, the government has encouraged

multinational corporations to establish industrial

plants in Malaysia. There is little doubt that some

32 Sociology

foreign firms have taken more capital out of Malaysiathan they have invested (Kanapathy 1970b; Mann 1977).One study shows that the rate of reinvestment waslower for foreign firms than locally owned ones(Hirschman 1971)

These questions assume greater importance withthe unequivocal evidence that both the traditionalpillat-s of the economy (rubber and tin) as well asthe growing industrial sector are substantially owned(if not dominated) by foreign interests (Puthucheary1960; Wheelwright 1965). A recent conference onmultinational corporations in Malaysia presented avariety of views, but no consensus (Chee and ?001974) There are some academics (and others) inMalaysia who argue for an end of the freedom of for-eign investment in Malaysia (Lim Mah Hui 1974) Thegovernment’s objective is to reduce the share of for-eign ownership of the Malaysian corporate sector from63 percent in 1970 to 30 percent in 1990. It is un-clear how this is to be accomplished without a clearbreak from past policies. (For the government’sobjective, see Malaysia 1976:88.

Since 1970 and the Mew Economic Policy, therehas been a greater reliance on the public sector tostimulate economic growth. The objective has beenless to disturb the private enterprise system, butto guarantee a stake for Malay interests in its de-velopment. So with government financing and support,a large number of public corporations have enteredinto a variety of sectors. Perhaps it is too soonto judge the effects of these new measures, but itdoes appear that there are a number of emergingbureaucratic problems of duplication of effort andlack of evaluation of economic returns (Thillainathan1976).

The eradication of Poverty and the Restructuring ofSociety

While most governments in developing societies(or developed societies for that matter) are inter-ested in the elimination of poverty and ethnic orregional inequality, these goals are rarely given more

Sociology 33

Unr5

than lip-service (excluding socialist societies),

the redistributive goals usually are seen to be sec-ondary to, and perhaps somewhat in conflict with,the primary object of rapid economic growth. This is

not the case in Malaysia. The facts of politicallife make it imperative that the government improvethe lives of the Malay population who constitute both

the majority of the disadvantaged and the electorate.

In 1970. in the aftermath of the 1969 ethnic dis-

orders, the government re-evaluated the indirectpolicies of the I960’a, and put forth the New EconomicPolicy as part of the Second Malaysia Plan. As notedearlier, the eradication of poverty in all ethniccommunities and restructuring of society to elimi-nate the identification of ethnicity with economicroles were the two key objectives.

There are some basic unresolved questions on thefeasibility of the specific objectives of employmentand wealth distribution, if all of the new oppor-tunities are supposed to come from growth, notredistribution (Thillainathan 1970 1974). Thesepossibilities are not considered here. Instead Ifocus on two other topics that have drawn consider-able attention from critics of Malaysian policy;1) the issue of rural Malay poverty; and 2) thedilemma of whether the creation of a class of Malaycapitalists is an adequate substitute for upliftnentof the Malay population.

As electoral pressures on the government toameliorate the conditions of the rural Malay commun-ity began to be felt in the late 1950s, public policyshifted to a focus on rural development. But thecauses of rural poverty are controversial, and aca-demic critics have described the weaknesses of govern-ment rural development policy (Azias 1958; 1962a; 1962b1964; Fisk 1962; l963a; 1963b; Chee and Khoo 1975,Part III). The basic flaw in government policy.identified by Fisk (196 3a), was the assumption thatone could create a prosperous Malay community andmaintain them in a rural agricultural way of life.The fact is that peasant agriculture, especially inrice production, will only yield a minimal income incomparison to other sectors of the economy. Thus,

34Sociology

any real policy to improve the plight of the Malaypeasantry must simultaneously encourage sectoralmobility into non-agricultural jobs.

^ ^r basic factors B^0""!^ tor rural poverty/andle8sness and unecono’ic size holdings, lowproductivity, and exploitation by landlords, middle-SnLaI^e elq?ort sector in general {Aziz ""b,Gamba 1958). The problem of land tenure is criticaland has been a recurrent theme in empirical studiesof the rural economy (T. B. wilson 1958, Ho 1967,

areas ’; 1^72) Land tenancy is greatest i ^areas where incomes are the lowest. Data from tho

of al?;;": y Agricultu"- ---led U^oTer’ce:!^ 11 ^ rms werc less than five acre^ in sizeeT^cres ("1 Islnail 1975:222) since a ^ fann^f6 3 acres (assuming ownership) was thought to be thesize necessary for the minimal family income $200 (Mper month (1971 prices), the magnitude of ^e Problemis overwhelming (Abdul Halim Ismail 1975:221).

The basic government strategy to deal with ruralpoverty has been resettlencnt prog.ams^^SfLdby the acclaimed Felda program. Landless peasants

^fi^nf w with newly planted rubber oro^ FBI".sufficient to ensure a prosperous livelihood.anv^i y ?6 T’16" on Ftelda schemes are "^ 9iven

^ l"^9^ hey Inust repay the ^""""t the cos?^em^nt^^ ^S and living anowa"^ advanced toS; "T ruy?er or oil palm are harvested. Forthe T^Ff settlers on f^ have greatly in>-mom’n? ^ economic situatlon- Coring for themoment, the prospects for the children of the settlers.

ora iT,-^ S??810 limitation of the resettlement pro-gram is that the cost of land development is so greatthat the number of potential settlers is only a sma??faction of the rural peasantry, m a review of ^development programs, Hussain Wafa notes that although-Pelda has opened more than 500.000 acres through 19731975 l^’^rT^ famlues had ^"efitte’d(1975:169) in his inaugural lecture as professor ofST ^ the uni?rsity ^ Malaya, ^robservesf^nd development and land settlement are excelleddevxces. but the few thousand that benefit each yeL

Sociology 35

s.-’;

^

(..i’:

f

[1i3

M̂

&-^

make up loss than ten percent of the total number whobecome landless every year" (1964:87)

The policies of land reform in existing agri-

cultural areas, and the expansion of jobs in the non-

agricultural sector are yet to be addressed, even in

the post-1970 era.

The other issue is the eradication of the ethnicassociation with economic status. This can be re-solved in several ways. For instance, if povertywere to be eliminated in all ethnic communities,roost of the assistance would be directed at the Malaycommunity because this is where the need is thegreatest. Such a program would minimize inter-ethnicinequality, and also reduce infra-ethnic inequality.But other policies aimed at reducing the Malay econ-omic disadvantage would not necessarily have thiseffect. Government assistance to help Malay enrepre-nuers and to increase the ownership of wealth in theMalay community would certainly minimize some intersethnic differences. But it would also serve towiden infra-ethnic inequality in the Malay community.These policies would not ease the plight of theMalay poor.

Although the government policy is aimed at bothobjectives (the elimination of poverty in all conmun-ities and of economic differences between Malays andnon-Malays) a number of critics have suggestedthat the elimination of poverty goal has becomesecondary to the creation of a Malay business classin the implementation of policy (Thillainathan 1975)Thus, a tremendous effort is being made to insurethat the Malays are hired as part of the administra-tive-managerial elite in the private and public corp-orations and that Malay interests are well representedin the ownership of corporate wealth. As one politi-cal observer put it, the aim seems to be to create100 wealthy Malay families to rival the few hundredrich Chinese families (Tan Chee-Khoon 1973)

If these observations are true, this issue raisessome important questions about the consequences of

36 Sociology

such policies. First, .can a class of entreprenuersbe created by government initiative? In a trenchantcritique of the Second Malaysia Plan, Syed HusseinAlatas (1972) charges that such a plan is impossible.He claims that successful entreprenuers are only made

by personal efforts and that government favoritism(non-competitive contracts, etc.) will only createa dependent bourgeoisie.

the unexpressed assumption of government aid toMalay business is that the benefits will trickledown to the Malay peasantry. Perhaps as role models,such entreprenuers will expand the ambition of Malayyouth. But, as noted earlier, Malay students alreadyhave higher educational and occupation aspirationsthan Chinese and Indian students. Will Malay busi-nessmen provide greater economic opportunities to themajority of the poor rural Malay community? It isdou’.tful that the benefits will diffuse widely amongthe Malay community. As Puthucheary pointed out yearsago, the presence of a number of rich Chinese capi-talists has not in any way alleviated the plight ofthe poor Chinese (1960:179).

As the direction of government policy and itsconsequences become manifest in the coming years, itwill be possible to address these questions in a moreadequate way.

Conclusions

Ihe topics and literature reviewed in this chap-ter are too numerous and varied to be easily summar-ized. Instead, some general comments on futuredirections in the sociology of Malaysia are offered.My views are not a prediction of what the future maybring, but more a subjective judgement of how to bestimprove the scope of scholarly research. First, I amnot a firm believer in disciplinary boundaries. Muchof the past social science on Malaysia has been domi-nated by economists, and for this reason, othersocial sciences such as sociology may wish to chartout their own unique substantive territory. I be-lieve this would be a serious mistake. The structureand problems of society are not organized for theconvenience of disciplinary perspectives. It is

37sociology

(.’.<

il

Mh0i,

a

Ila

^

^^.s’ssss.communicate v^h o n^^helming attention

"^issJ^f developnent and equality in Malaysia,

SSF^^1.^^wy

^x^^.^?^"^^0^--

ss?^?:ii^s;.-;,SSaSSa"-=---"based fe86archezs.

rt.uy. "" """* wkth l’"’lt’"a"’’^Sr’T^^^y^.^^t^^^^"-"s^\hs^r^r^^^how conditions have changed in the interim-. ^lingering effects of colonial ^. ^ ^^TSbrought with political independence are yet t.thoroughly researched. Ihe agenda for future socxo-

logical research In Malaysia is a full <w-

^

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdul Halim lamail1975 The Smallholding sector and the New Econ-omic Policy. m Malaysian Economic Developsay Policies. Stephen Chee and Khoo slew Mun.od?" :22?- Kuala L^"^ Malaysian Econ-omic Association.

Alatas, Syed Hussein1972 The Second Malaysia Plan 1971-1975 A

crrl^ue’ occasioal va^ No. 15. Singapore;Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Alien. G. C. and H. G. Donnithorne

r195^ western ^rprise in Indonesia and MalayaLondon: George Alien and Uiwin.

Amin, Mohamed and Malcolm Caldwell, eds1977 Malaya.’ The Making of a Neo-ColonuLondon; Spokesman.

Aziz, Ungku1958 Land Disintegration and Land Policy inwaiaya. Malayan Economic Review 3 :22-29.

Lu"8 subdlvls:lon of Bs^es in Malaya. Kualas: re:^ of Economics- universit^ of

1962b Facts and Fallacies About the Malay

So0^ ^-T^ with New Footnotes-

1964 poverty and Rural Development in Malaysia.Kajian Ekonomi Malaysia 1:70-105.

Aries, J. p.1971 Ethnic and Socio-economic Patterns inMalaysia. International Labour Review 104:527-

30

Sociology 39>:1<

^

uf,.;

L-r:.)

%flFAB

Bach^ Robert1976 Historical Patterns of Capitalist Pene-

tration in Malaysia, journal of ContemporaryAsia 6:458-476.

Blake, Donald J.1973 Uneirployment The West Halaysian Example.

UMBC Economic Review 9(36-45.

Biythe. W. L.1947 Historical Sketch of Chinese Labor in Malay.Journal of the Malayan Branch of the RoyalAsiatic Society 20s64-114.

Caldwell, John C.1963a Urban Growth in Malaya: Trends and Inpli-cations. Population Review 7<39-50.

1963b Fertility Decline and Female Chances of

Marriage in Malaya. Population Studies 17:20-32.

Chain, B. M.1975 Class and Oonanunal Conflict in Malaysia.Journal of Contemporary Asia 5:446-461.

1977 Colonialism and Communalism in Malaysia.Journal of Contemporary Asia 7:178-199

Chander, R., ed.1977 1970 Population Census of Malaysia,General Report. Kuala Lmnpur: Department ofStatistics. TWO volumes.

Chang, Paul Min-Phang1973 Educational Development in a Plural Society.Singapore: Academia Publications.

Chee, Stephen, and Khoo Siew-Mun, eds.

1974 Jtalaysia and the Multinational Corporation.Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Economic Association.

1975 Malaysian Bconom.tc 0v(R).Iopaent and Po-Iicies.

Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Economic Association.

40 Sociology

Cho, Lee Jay, James A. Palmore, and Lyie Saunders1968 Recent Fertility Trends in West Malaysia.Demography 5:732-744.

Cockcroft, James D., Andre Gunder Frank, andDale L. Johnson.

1972 Dependence and Underdovelopment. GardenCity, New York: Doubleday.

Cooper, Eunice1951 Urbanization in Malaya. Population Studies5:117-131.

Del Tufo, M. V.1949 A Report on the 1947 Census of Population:Malaya. London; Crown Agents for the Colonies.

Djamour, Judith1959 Malay Kinship an<* Marriage In Singapore.London: the Athlone Press.

Drabble, John H.1973 Rubber in Malaya 1876-1922: The Genesisof the Industry. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford.

Drake. P. J.1969 The New Issue Boom in Malaya and Singapore,1961-64. Economic Development and CulturalChange 18:73-91.

Edmonds, Juliet1968 Religion, Intermarriage and Assimilation:The Chinese in Malaya. Race 10:57-67.

Emerson, Rupert1964 Malaysia; A Study In Direct and IndirectRule. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya press.

(Originally published in 1937.)

Enloe, Cynthia1968 Issues and Integration in Malaysia.Pacific Affairs 41:372-385.

41

Sociologyf-f

IIIs’.

<;

R

1970 Multi-Ethnic Politics: The Case of

^alaJa. Research Monograph No. 2. Berkeley:

Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.

University of California.

^"lO^ ^dnunistration and Developn^nt in Malaysia.

Ithaca: comell University Press.

’^iSoo 1957 population Census of the Federation

Malaya. Report No. 14. Kuala Lumpur Oe-

Partment of Statistics. Federation of -Malaya.

Firth Raymond^, ^^ Econoy.

S^ond^on. London. ^^^Kegan

Paul. (Originally published in 1946.)

r-Mr,

s.i...

KNh

^^)

^^rTo^eeping A^ng Malay Peasants

end Edition. London: The Athlone Press.

(Originally published in 1943.)

Sec-

ri3k’ ^"Special Developo.ent Problems of Plural

Societies: The Malayan Example. Economic

Record 38:209-225.

^^^"^LS-o?^?-^,.^-^W^’^’l,63b R-r.1 D.vel.p-.nt Policy. In ^ ^"1^W.^"’^;. ^.^University of California Press.

^l^Fernale Labor Force Participation in a

ModernISng Society. Malaya and Singapore

Papers of the East-Vest Population Institute,

Ho 34. Honolulu. East-West Center,

42Sociology

Freedman, Maurice1955 The Chinese in Southeast Asia Tn.^r1^;.-^-^^^^of Hawaii Press.

^"sr^i;,^^^^-^J-:^:-,^^^.^.^ *n ^..

Freedman. Maurice, and M. G. Swift

^Soio^r^ in Malaya- current

Gagliano, Felix V.

^^^"^^^ ^o*^"^.^:;. ’" -"-i s.^::; "Gamba, Charles

1958 poverty and Socio-economic Aspects ofHoarding. Saving and Borrowing in SayaMalayan Economic Review 3:33-62.-aya-

Geertz, Clifford1963 Agriculture Involution,versity of California Press.

Berkeley: (jni-

Goh, Cheng Teik1971 The Mayand Malaysia.Press.

Thirteenth Incident and DemocracyKuala Lumpur; Oxford University

Gullick, J. M.

jSaua^9^01" polltical ^^ of WesternMalaya. London, The Athlone Press

Hamzah, Sendut1962 Patterns of Urbanization in MalayaJournal of Tropical Geography 16:114-130:

I?)

Sociology 43

i-,t

fi.";

’f

r"

liM

^

1964 Urbanization. In Malaysia; A Survey.Wang Gungwu, ed. 82-96. London: Pall MallPress.

1965 Some Aspects of Urban Change in Malaya,1931-1957. Kajian Ekonomi Malaysia 2:87-103.

1966 Contemporary Urbanization in Malaya. AsianSurvey 69:484-491.

Hawley, AmosForthcoming Internal Migration In the Labor ForceAges, Peninsular Malaysia, 1970. Kuala Lumpur:Department of Statistics.

Henderson, John W. Helen A. Barth. Judith M. Heimann,Philip W. Moeller, Francisco S. Soriano, andJohn 0. Weaver1970 Area Handbook for Halaysia. Prepared byForeign Area Studies of the American University.Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.(Second edition published in 1977.)

Hirschman, Charles1971 Ownership and Control in the ManufacturingSector of West Malaysia. UMBC economic Review(Kuala Lumpur) 7,21-30.

1972 Education in Colonial Malaya. ComparativeEducation Review 16:486-502.

1974 Economic Progress in Malaysia: How WidelyHas It Been Shared? UMBC Economic Review ’KualaLumpur) 10:35-44.

1975a Ethnic and Social Stratification inPeninsular Malaysia. Rose Monograph Series.Washington, D.C. American Sociological Associ-ation.

l975b Met External Migration From PeninsularMalaysia, 1957-1970. Malayan Economic Review20:38-54.

44Sociology

^.^^s^^’ in pl-

^^mc^^^ ^

Sy’^^-^^^^^^^o^Sl:^^^^^

Hirsctoan. Charles and Akbar Aghajanian

asSss.r?-;-^..^ s^.. ^^ "’Ho, Robert

^L^r,:;.?""-’ ’".-- Sin,.po..,

Hodder, B.W.

^Y^.^^ ^"110"1 "---rsity o.(Originally published in 1955)

Huang. Yukon

^^^’TcLrsSarT and Non-Indi-n-^nt Studies 10,nl.^udy- Journa2 of ^^op-

Husin All, syed

^^^^"^^"^r^ tew- -^^^-c^r^^-^^.l*nLCS;"t^^"ov"’y ^. -i

Sociology 45

1975 Malay peasant Society and Leadership.Lun\pur< Oxford University Press,

Kuala

:’

li?LIf̂i

t--’

Hussein Wafa, Syed1975 Strategies and Programmes of Land Develop-ment in Malaysia. In Malaysian Economic Deveiop-

cent and Policies. Stephen Chee and Khoo SlewMun, eds. 156-193. Kuala Lumpur: MalaysianEconomic Association.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development1955 The Economic Development of Halaya.Baltimore< Johns Hopkins.

Jackson, R. M.1961 Jimugrant Labour and the Development ofHalaya, 1786-1920. Kuala Lumpur; GovernmentPrinter.

Johnson, J. Timothy, Tan Boon Ann and Leslie Corsa1973 Assessment of Family Planning ProgrammeEffects on Births: Preliminary Results ObtainedThtoough Direct Hatching of Birth and ProgrammeAcceptor Records, population Studies 27:85-96.

Jones, Gavin1965 Female Participation in the Labor Force ina Plural Economy. Nalauan Economic Review10:61-B2.

Kahar Bador, A.1973 Social Hank, Status-Honour, and SocialClass Consciousness Amongst the Malays. InModernization in Southeast Asia. Hans-DieterEvers. ed. 132-149. Singapore: OxfordUniversity Press.

Kanapathy, V.l970a The Malaysian Economy.- Problems andProspects. Singapore: Donald Moore Press.

1970b Foreign Investment in Malaysia: Evidenceand Prospects. VHBC Economic Review (Kuala

Lumpur) 6?1-22.

46 Sociology

Kaspar, Wolfgang1973 A New Strategy for Malaysia’s EconomicDevelopment in the 1970’s? UMBC Economic Review(Kuala Lumpur) 9;16-28.

1974 Malaysia: A Study In Successful EconomicDevelopment. Washington, D.C. American Enter-prise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Kennedy, J.1965 A History of MalayasLumpur: Macmillan.

AD 1400-1959. Kuala

Lamb, Alasfcair1964 Early History. In Malaysia: A Survey.Wang Gungwu, ed. 99-112. Mew York: Praeger.

Lee, Eddy1977 Development and Income Distribution: ACase Study of Sri Lanka and Malaysia. World

Development 5:279-289.

Li Dun-Jen1955 British Malaya: An Economic Analysis.New York: American Press.

^ im <"ho"g-vah1967 Economic Development of Modern Malaya.Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Lim, David1973 Economic Growth and Development In WestMalaysia, 1947-1970. Kuala Lumpur: OxfordUniversity Press.

1974 The Role of the University in DevelopmentPlanning in Malaysia. Minerva 12;18-38.

Lim Lin-Lean1970 Racial Income Differentials in WestMalaysia. Kajlan Ekonomi Malaysia 7:1-18.

to47

Sociology

h

i...

,971 sone Mlcts ol I"""" SiClwMUU In

^ "’T^"^^--" ^"lty’0?^-^ ^"i.."on. univ."i’ ’Malaya.

1974 The Patterns of Income Distribution in

ies^ Malaysia. 1957-1970. Working Paper 2-23.

^d^mployn-t Program Research. Geneva,

international Labour Office.

UB "^Liberation: A Pro-requisite for ^enticDevelopment. Manusia dan Masyanakat 3:24-47.

- ^^ rconScThLacteristics of^e Popu-

lation of the Federation of Malaya. Malayan

Economic Review 5:10-46.

Hahathir bin Mohamad1970 The Malay Dilemma.

Moore.

Singapore: Donald

F2

IJ

r,

Malaysia 1971-1975 Kuala1971 .Second Malaysia Plan; 1971 l-f^.

Lumpur: Government Printer.

1976 Third Malaysia Plan: 1976-1980. Kuala

Lumpur: Government Press.

^"l^Some Effects of Foreign X--"^ ^Case of Malaysia. Bulletin of Concerned Asian

Scholars 9(4) ;2-14.

^^ays in Kuala L^ur: ^ Investigation of

Se Aspect’of the Process of "^tio^Occupational Mobility. I" T_G. MCGee "’e^Urbanization Process in the Third WorId. 149

179. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd.

48 Sociology

1972 Rural Urban Migration in a Plural Society;A Case Study of Malays in West Malaysia. In TheCity as a Centre of Change in Asia; 108-124.D.J. Dwyer, ed. Hong Kong: University ofHong Kong Press.

McKenzie, R.D.1927 Race Invasion of Malaya. Journal of

Applied Sociology. 11:525-540.

Means, Gordon1970 Halaysian Politics. London: Universityof London.

Ministry of Education, Malaysia1973 Kajian Keciciran (Drop-out Study) Kuala

Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Mokhzani, B.A.R.1965 The Study of Social Stratification and

Social Mobility in Malaya. East Asian CulturalStudies 4:138-162.

Nagata, Judith1974a Urban Interlude: Some Aspects of Internal

Malay Migration in West Malaysia. Jnternationa.2Migration Review 8:301-324.

1974b What is a Malay? Situational Selection of

Ethnic Identity in a Plural Society. AmericanEthnologist 1:331-350.

1975 Perceptions of Social Inequality in Malaysia.In Pluralism in Malaysia: Myth and Reality.Judith Nagata, ed. Contributions to Asian Studies,7:113-136. Leiden; E.J. Brill.

Narayanan, Suresh1975 Patterns and Implications of Urban Changein Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan Economic Review

20:55-71.

Nash, Manning1974 peasant Citizens: Politics, Re-Iigion andModernization in Kelantan, Malaysia. SoutheastA.SI..-I Seri’.-’K No. 31 Athens; Crnter for Inter-iitH.ion.^l :-.i.ii.]i>;.s Oliiu l)[ii">--i .al Ly

^-t

49Sociology

.<^ai ^oe-ations Council, Malaysia

n̂Mat

1969"’The Ma, 13 Tragedy. Kuala Lumpur: Govern-

ment Printer.

^l^1 Economic Development and the Goals of

Government. In Malaysia: A Survey. Wang

^u ed. 307-320. New York: Praeger.

nfi7 Bureaucracy and Rural Development in

^aysia Berkeley: University of Califomxa

press.

Oxxal ivar. Tony Burnett. and David Booth, eds.

1975 Beyond the Sociology of Development.

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

r ^^^age^^^C^^^in West Malaysia. 1966-67. Dewgraphy 6:383 401.

Palnore, James. Robert E. Klein. and Ariffin bin

^^l^O Class and Fand.ly in a *todernizin9 society

American journal of Sociology 76:375-398.

Palmore. James A. Ramesh Chander. and Dorothy Z.

F<"’nanl?75 The Denographic Situation in Malaysiapopulation and cevelopment in Southeast Asia.

John Kanter and Lee McCaffrev. eds. 57-82

Lexington; D.C. Heath.^In

Parkinson, Brien1967 Non-Economic Factors in the Economic Re

tardation of the Rural Malays. Modern Asian

Studies 1:31-46.lia-Jut

^ 1968 The Economic Retardation of the Malays

Rejoinder. Modern Asian Studies 2:267-272.

A

Fanner, J. Honnan <...,.<

1960 Colonial Labour Policy and Administration.New York: Monograph of the Association for

Asian Studies.

R.--

50Sociology

Pryor, Robin J.1973 The Charging Settlement System of WestMalaysia. Journal of Tropical Geography 37,53-67.

1974 Spatial Analysis of Internal Migration,Monograph Series No. 5, Townsville. Australia-Department of Geography. James Cook University.

Purcal, John T.1965 Labour Utilization in a Padi Village in

\^-TO wellesley’ ^y3" Economic Relies1971 Rice Economy, Employment and Income InMalaysia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Purcell, y.1948 The Chinese in Malaya. London: OxfordUniversity Press. (Reprinted in 1967.)

Puthucheary. J.j.

1960 Ownership and Control In the Malayan EconomuSingapore: Eastern Universities PressEco^om

Ratnam, K.j.

^a5 00’";1""1^1" and the pollt1^ ^ess inMalaya. Singapore; University of Malaya Press.Ratnam, K.J. and R.s. Milne

K96?,. t"16 Nalayan ^^"tary Election of 1964Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.

Reid. A.

ITitil^ ^uala Lun>pur Riots and the "^o^anPolitical System. Australian Outlook 23;258- 27.Riaz Hassan

1973 Some Aspects of Occupational and Class

JournT^ we8t Malaysia- Southeast AsianJournal of Social Science 1:17-40.

Roff. William1967 The Origins of Malay Nationalism. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

I*.!>.: sociology

?’:51

h

Hr.1i

^̂B

Rudner, Martin1970a The State And Peasajit Innovation in RuralDevelopment: The Case of Halaysian Rubber.Asian and African Studies 6:75-96.

1970b Rubber Strategy for Post-War Malaya.Journal or Southeast Asian Studies 1:23-36.

1971 Malayan Quandry: Rural Development PolicyUnder the First and Second Pive-Year Plans.Contribution to Asian Studies 1:190-204. E.J.Brill, Leiden

1972 The Draft Development Plan of the Federa-tion of Malaya, 1950-1955. Journal or SoutheastAsian Studies 3:63-96.

1975a Nationalism, Planning, and EconomicModernization in Malaysia: The Politics of

Beginning Development. Sage Research Papersin the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.

1975b Financial Policies in Poat-Mar Malaya* ’heFiscal and Monetary tteasures of Liberation andReconstruction. Journal of Imperial and Common-wealth History 3:323-348.

1976a The Structure of Government in the ColonialFederation of Malaya. South-Bast Asian Studies(Kyoto) 13:495-512.

1976b Malayan Rubber Policy; Development andAnti-Development in the 1950’s, journal ofSoutheast Asian Studies 8s235-259.

1970 The Making of Modern Malaysia and Singapore.A History From Earliest Time to 1966. KualaLumpur; Oxford.

Sandhu. Kemial Singh1964 Emergency Resettlement in Malaya. Journalof Tropical Geography 18157-183.

52 Sociology |ll sociology53

i^

1969 Indians in Malaya: Some Aspects of Their fc^Immigration and Settlement (.1786-1957) Cambridge ["*University Press.

Saw Swee-Hock1963 Trends and Differentials in International

Migration in Malaya. E*onomi 4:87-113.

1966a Pattern ’of Fertility Decline in Malaya,1956-1965. Kajian Ekonomi Malaysia 3;7:14.

1966b State Differential Mortality in Malaya,

Population Review 10:65-67.

1967a A Note on Fertility Levels in Malaya during1947-1957. Malayan Economic Review 12:117-123.

1967b Fertility Differentials in Early PostwarMalaya. Demography 4:641-656.

1976c Postwar Mortality Trends in Malaya.

Collected Papers, IUSSP Sydney Conferences 573-578. Canberra; Australian National University.

1972 Patterns of Urbanization in West Malaysia,1911-1970. Malayan Economic Review 17:114-120.

Saw Swee-Hock, and Cheng Siok-Hwa1975 A Bibliography of the Demography of Malaysiaand Brunei. Singapore; University EducationPress.

Scott, James C. ^1968 Political Ideology in Malaysia: Reality ^and the Beliefs of an Elite. New Haven: Yale

University Press. (Second edition published in1976.)

..Shamsul Bahrin, Tunku1967 The Pattern of Indonesian Migration and

Settlement in Malaya. Asian Studies 5:233-257.

Sidhu^ -^^^ Dominance of West Malaysian Towns.

1921-1970. Geography 61:17-23.

Silcock, T.H. ed.

1961a Readings in Malayan Economics. Singapore:

Donald Moore Press.

1961b The Economy of Malaya: Relevance of the

Competitive Laissez-Paire Model. In Economic

Systems of the Commonwealth. C. Hoover, ed.

329-373. Durham: Duke University Press.

1963a Communal and Party Stucture. In The

political Economy of Independent Malaya. T.H.

Silcock and E.K. Fisk. eds. 242-275. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

1963b A General Review of Economic Policy. In

The political Economy of .Independent Malaya.

T.H. Silcock and E-K. Fisk. eds. 242-275.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

1965 The Impact of Industrialization on Race

Relations in Malaya. In industrialization and

Race Relations; A Symposium. Guy Hunter, ed.

177-200. New York: Oxford.

Silcock, T.H., and E.K. Fisk. eda.

1963 The political Economy of Independent

Halaya: A Case Study in Development. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Silcock, T.H. and Ungku Abdul Aziz

1953 Nationalism in Malaya. In Asian Mationalisa

and the Vest. W.L. Holland, ed. 267-345.

New York: MacMillian.

Smith, T.E.1952 population Growth in Malaya: An Analysis

of Recent Trends. London; Royal Institute of

International Affairs.

Snodgrass, DonaldForthcoming Inequality and Economic Development

in Malaysia. Unpublished. Manuscript. Harvard

Institute for International Development,

Cambridje, Massachussetts.

54 Sociology

Soenarno, Radin1960 Malay Nationalism, 1896-1945. Journal ofSoutheast Asian History 1:1-28.

Soon Lee-Ying1977 Migration Differentials: A Case Study ofMigrants in Peninsular Malaysia. UnpublishedPaper. Faculty of Economics and Administration,University of Malaya.

Steinberg, David, ed.1972 in Search of Southeast Asia: A ModernHistory. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford.

Stenson, Michael1976 Race and Class in West Malaysia. Bulletinof Concerned Asian Scholars 8(2) :45-54.

Stubbs, Richard1974 Counter--Tnsurgrency and tne EconomicFactor: The Impact of Korean Uar Prices Boomon the Malayan Emergency. Occasional PaperNo. 19 Singapore: Institute of Southeast AsianStudies.

Sumitro Djojohadikusumo1969 Trade and Aid in Southeast Asia: Volume 1,Malaysia and Singapore. Kuala Lumpur: Univers-ity of Malaya Co-operative Bookshop.

Takei, Yoshimitsu, John C. Bock, and Bruce Saunders1973 Educational Sponsorship by Ethnicity: APreliminary Analysis of the West MalaysianExperience. Southeast Asia Series No. 28.Athens: Center of International Studies,Ohio University.

Tan Chee-Khoon1973 Speech in Parliament on the Mid-Term Re-view of the Second Pive-Year Plan. KualaLumpur: Mimeo.

55tooiology

E.c3

"̂5

^"^The Second Malaysia Plan-Notes on the

Objectives of Balanced Distribution of Wealth

.nd Employment. Kajlan Ekonomi Malaysia 7:57-71.

1974 Balanced Distribution of Wealth and income

In Malaysia. Kajian Ekonomi Malaysia 11:40-50.

1975 Distributional Issues and policies in

Malaysia A Review. Paper presented at the

Second Malaysian Economic Convention. Kuala

Lunpur. March 26-30, 1975.

1976 Public Enterprises in Malaysia Problems

and Prospects. VMBC Economic Review Kuala

Lumpur 12:37-45.

TllRan, Robert 0.

1964 Bureaucratic Transition in Malaya.

Duke University Press.

Durham:

VsIIIE-i,s

Vuil, R. K.1971 Politics In a Plural Society.

Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Kuala

1972 The Malaysian General Election of 1969.

Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Mallerstein, Inunanuel1974 The Modern World System. New York:

Academic Press.

Mang, Bee-Lan Chan1977 Governmental Intervention in Ethnic

Stratification: Effects on the Distribution of

Students Among Fields of Study. ComparativeEducation Review 21:110-123.

Heldon, peter

1973 Teaching and Research in Sociology in

Southeast Asia. Social Science Information

12:143-156.

56 Sociology

Wheelwright, E.L.1965 Industrialization in Malaya.University Press.

Melbourne

Wikkramatileke, R.1964 Variable Ethnic Attributes in MalayanRural Land Development. Pacific Viewpoint5; 3.5-50.

Wilder, William1968 Islam, Other Factors and Malay Backward-ness: Comments on an Argument. Modern AsianStudies 2:155-164.

Wilson, Alan1977 Education, Mobility and Expectations ofYouths in Malaysia. In Cultural Pluralism in

Malaysia. John A. Lent, ed. 58-70. DeKalb:The Center for Southeast Asian Studies, NorthernIllinois University, Special Report No. 14.

Wilson. T.B.1958 The Economics of Pad! Production in NorthMalaya. Part I. Bulletin 103. Kuala Lumpur:Department of Agriculture; Federation of Malaya.

Wong Lin Ken1965 The Economic History of Malaysia: A

Bibliography Essay. Journal of Economic History25:244-262.

Yip Yat-Hoong1969 The Development of the Tin Mining Industryof Malaya. Kuala Lumpur: University of MalayaPress.

Zainal Azman Yusof, and Khairuddin Yusof1974 Some Socio-economic and Medical Aspectsof Malay Mortality in Urban-Rural Areas.Malaysian Centre for Development Studies.Occasional Paper No. 1. Kuala Lumpur: MalaysianCentre for Development Studies, Prime MinisterDepartment.

APPENDIX I

nq60- ). Journal of the Economics

S:S student organization) of the Universe of

SSaya in Kuala Lumpur. Irregular.

(l964(?) ?. Published by the Malaysian

SLioKgica! Research Institute, Singapore. Pub-

^d^our issues annually for several years until

^caSon was stopped in the late 1960s (7).

,.ma2 .ntropoloji dan ^^^^^^sharaKat^rscSnSTdTJSisrs^ieS). uni-^i

Sbangsaan rational University). Kuala Lumpur.

Annual.

^.^^^u^^^^^^^.’-^^"^.".^"-"s ’-.t of the Journal of Southeast Asian History

(1960-69).

The journal of Tropical Geography (1953- )_published by the Departments of Geography of the

adversity of Singapore and University of Malaya.

two iaaues per year.

JC.Jian Bkonomi Malaysia (1964- ). ^wal of the

Itolaysian Economic Association (Persatuan Ekonomi

Malaysia). Faculty of Economics and Administration,

University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. TWO issues per

yar.

The Malayan Economic Review (1956- ). 1[he

Journal of the Economic Society of Singapore, the

Department of Economics and Statistics, and the

Economic tesearch Centre of the University of

Singapore. Two issues per year.

nusia dan Nasharakat (1972- ). Journal of the

Anthropology and Sociology Society of the University

of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. Annual.

58 Sociology

Hanyang Quarterly: A Review of Southeast AsianStudies (1971- Journal of the South SeasSociety, P.O. Box 709, Singapore. Four issues peryear, sometimes published as one or two issues peryear.

Nusantara: Journal of the Arts and Social Sciencesof Southeast Asia (1972- Published by DewanBahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur. Two issues per year.

Southeast Asian Journal of Social Sciences (1973-Published by University Education Press, and edited bythe Department of Sociology, University of Singapore.Two issues per year.

UMBC Economic Review (1965- Published by theUMBC (United Malayan Banking Corporation) KualaLumpur. Two issues per year.

’%:^K^^

%.^-^H"^Chapter Two

ANTHROPOLOGY

Vinson H. Sutlive, Jr.[^’!":^-":^f

’;^’"

introduction^",Anthropology’s century-old history has been marked

by close relationship with Malaysian Area studies.

Although it must be acknowledged that anthropology as a

discipline only has been taught in Malaysian institu-

tion* ince World War II, research integral to the

relation of the discipline began well over 100 years

00 in Malaysia. Among the best known but only a sanple

Of thft cores of scholars who made early contributions

^to.Ctudieo of the peoples and cultures of Malaysia are

UM (1848), Maxwell (1884) Ling Roth (1896) Clifford

0897), Skeat and Blagden (1906) Winstedt (1925)

Chbeita (1931), Moone (1932) Haddon and Start (1936).

nd Bvans (1937)

More recently, anthropological research in Malaysia

ha provided important correctives to fundamental miscon-

oeption* about human aggression (Dentan 1968; also Paul

,l78). social organization (Leach 1950; Brown 1976)

(ratification (Rousseau 1975) ethnic identity

(Baboock 1974) and ethnic evolution (Sutlive 1978)

Othar research has expanded considerably our knowledge

^<< the aborigines or Orang Asli (Endioott 1974) the

^VOlutlon of Malaysian political structures and belief

I^WttM (Benjamin 1974). peoples of central Borneo’’-^(ltoueau 1974a. 1974b) and urban migration with new

;::;fktTn of behavior (Nagata 1974a, Provencher 1972)

59