In this final chapter we will make an attempt to examine the most plausible course of future trends in the population of Malaysia. This can be accomplished by projecting the population into the future on the basis of certain assumptions concerning the future path of migration, mortality and fertility. Before analysing the salient features of these projected figures, we will discuss the 1984 pronatalist policy that has exerted some influence on the course of population dynamics in the country.

THE 70 MILLION POLICY

Many of the past demographic trends and patterns discussed earlier were influenced by government attitudes and policies, some of which are translated into administrative procedures or even enshrined in the laws of the country. In general, the future population trends will depend partly on what had already happened to the growth factors of fertility, mortality and migration in the immediate past and partly on government policies that are likely to affect the future path of population growth. In this respect, Malaysia stands out as one of the very few countries that are now advocating for a larger population than what was previously thought to be desirable and have even pin-pointed a particular population size to be achieved ultimately in the future.

The genesis of the new policy can be traced to September 1982 when the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, first mooted the idea of an ultimate population size of 70 million in his presidential address to a general assembly of the United Malay National Organisation (UMNO). His rationale was that Malaysia needs a big population to provide a large domestic market to support its future industries in the face of an increasingly protectionist world market. The concept of a large population was in sharp contradiction to the existing population policy under which the government family planning programme has been functioning for many years since 1966. It is not surprising that this sudden pronouncement sparked off considerable controversies and discussions about the implications of 70 million people in the fields of housing, education, health, employment, food production, water requirements and energy consumption. Some of the ensuing debates were rather confusing in the face of a failure to provide reasons for selecting 70 million and to specify the year in which this target is to be attained.