1. Federation of Malaya, Progress Report on the Development Plans of the Federation of Malaya, 1950–1952 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1953), 61.Google Scholar

2. Robinson, J.B. Perry. Transformation in Malaya. (London, 1955). 74–75Google Scholar. Many of these squatters possessed a Temporary Occupation License (TOL). These TOL prohibited the construction of permanent buildings or the planting of permanent crops and rubber, coconut, and fruit trees.

3. Malaya (Federation) Department of Public Relations, Communist Banditry in Malaya: The Emergency, June 1948 – December 19–18 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer. 1050). 8.Google Scholar

4. Dobby, E.H.G., “Recent Settlement Changes in South Malaya,” Malayan Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 1 (1953), 5Google Scholar. Stead, Ronald, “The New Villages in Malaya,” Geographical Magazine, Vol. XXVII (04, 1955). 642.Google Scholar

5. Miller, , The Communist Menace In Malaya. (New York, 1954) 143Google Scholar. The Min Yuen is controlled by District and Branch Committees, which spearhead Malayan Communist Party political organization and are in direct contact with the masses. Local Min Yuen organizations were called by many names: Workers Protection Corps, Peoples Defense Corps, Peasant Union, and so on. In spite of the variety of names, the general functions of these organizations were similar and included the collection of funds for the Malayan Races Liberation Army, provision of supplies and intelligence information, dissemination, of propaganda, provision of recruits for the party and the Malayan Races Liberation Army, sabotage and participation in guerrilla warfare. Little is known about the inner organization of the Min Yuen other than that its leadership was very tightly knit and consisted of trusted Communists who maintained effective independent liaison with Malayan Communist Party and Malayan Races Liberation Army units operating in their home areas (Counterinsurgency Study [Newport, Rhode Island: The United States Naval War College, 1962], G-3Google Scholar.

Min Yuen's strength has never been accurately established, but estimates both by the armed forces and the Malay police have put it at between 15,000 and 25,000 during various stages of the Emergency (Counterinsurgency Study, G-3).

6. Pelzer, Karl J., “Resettlement in Malaya,” Yale Review, Vol. 41 (03, 1952), 399.Google Scholar

7. In June 1951, the Briggs Plan came into effect. It was aimed at bringing proper administrative control to a population which had never before been controlled. The main aspects of the plan were: (1) Rapid resettlement of squatters under the surveillance of police and auxiliary police; (2) Regrouping local labor in mines and on estates; (3) The recruitment and training of special branch police personnel; and (4) The Army would provide a minimum number of troops throughout the country to support the police and would simultaneously provide a concentration of forces for clearing of priority areas.

The police and army were to operate in complete accord. To facilitate this joint operation, control was established at all levels, and there was close integration of police and military intelligence.

The plan also established the State War Executive Committee and the District War Executive Committee chain of command. This organizational setup insured the complete integration of the Emergency effort and constant security force action in support of civil power.

The Plan was essentially a thorough but long-term proposition. It envisaged a logical clearing of the country from south to north, leaving behind a strong police force and civil administration once an area or State had been cleared. It also aimed to isolate the guerrillas from the rest of the rural population, thereby depriving the guerrillas of their means of support. This forced the guerrillas into the open where they could be better dealt with by the Security forces (Counterinsurgency Study, G-15—G16).

8. Emergency Regulations Ordinance. 1948 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948).

9. L.N. 245/49 Emergency (Amendment No IS) Regulations. 1949 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948).

10. The office of Mentri Besar (though now elective) was at the time the highest administrative post in the State and was normally filled by a senior administrative officer. His appointment was a matter of discretion of the Ruler of the State. The Mentri Besar was also the senior ex officio member of the State Executive Council, and also in all cases the President of the Council of State, the legislative council and predecessor of the Legislative Assembly of the State. In addition, by the requirement of the State Constitutions any appointee to the office of Mentri Besar had to be a person of the Malay race and professing the Muslim religion (Sheridan, L.A. [ed.]. Malaya and Singapore, the Berneo Territories: The Development of their Laws and Constitutions [London: Stevens and Sons Limited, 1961], 77).Google Scholar

11. L.N. 342/49 Emergency (Amendment No. 16) Regulations. 1949 (F of M No. 10 of 1948).

12. In Malacca the restrictions of customary tenure are currently prescribed in cap. 125 of the Revised Laws of the S.S., 1936, as amended by the Malacca Lands (Customary Rights) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1936, (N.38), although they were first introduced in the Malacca Lands Customary Rights Ordinance of 1886. These laws are basically pre-Islamic in origin, but have been subjected to a great deal of Muslim influence. The pertinent section applicable to the above discussion is section 3 (1) which provides that “No transfer of customary land shall be valid unless it is made to an individual qualified to become a customary landholder.” Section 3 (2) states that “the following persons shall be deemed to be qualified to become customary landholders:— (a) any Malay domiciled in the State of Malacca; and (b) any person holding a certificate from the Resident Councillor of Malacca that he is qualified to hold customary land.” Section 14 further provides that all titles, mutations, mortgages, transfers, or transmissions hall be registered in Mukim registers.

13. Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, and Selangor: Malay Reservations Enactment (Revised Laws of the F.M.S., 1935, cap. 142), s. 3 and 7. Johore: Malay Reservations Enactment, 1936, s. 3 and 8. Kedah: Malay Reservations Enactment (Revised Laws, 1934, No. 63), s. 3 and 8. Kelantan: Malay Reservations Enactment, 1930 (No. 18), s. 4 and 6, as amended by the Malay Reservations (Amendment) Enactment (Kelantan No. 8 of 1940) [restriction not applicable to periods of a year or less]. Perlis: Reservations Enactment, 1353 [sic] (No. 7), s. 3 and 7 [Malay or Siamese]. Trengganu: Malay Reservations Enactment, 1360 [sic] (No. 17), as amended by the Malay Reservations (Amendment) Enactment 1951 (No. 3), and the Malay Reservations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1954 (F. of M. No. 25). In addition, the Malay Reservations Enactment, 1936 (Johore No. 1), s. 6. provides that in certain circumstances the landowner may declare land to be Malay Reservation.

14. Malay Reservations Enactment (Revised Laws of the F.M.S., 1935, cap. 142), s. 8. For a complete discussion of the land codes of the Malay States and Malay property laws see, Sheridan, L.A. (ed.), Malaya and Singapore …. chap. 13.Google Scholar

15. Miller, , 233Google Scholar. The land is on lease rather than freehold, because all land is vested in the ruler, although it may be held of him either in perpetuity or for a term of years. In addition, although holding a document of title, the owner by possession of title is the recipient of the implied obligation to pay the rent or consolidated annual charge by way of rent reserved in respect of such holding (Land [Group Settlement Areas] Act, 1960 [No. 13], s. 11 (2) and s. 13).

16. Robinson, . 93Google Scholar. The proscriptive nature of the Emergency Regulations detailed practically all aspects of daily life for the residents of the “new villages,” see. Malaya (Federation), Federal Subsidiary Legislation, 1918–1960 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Press)Google Scholar.

a. Cited from: Malaya (Federation), Progress Report on the Development Plans of the Federation of Malaya, 1950–1952, 61Google Scholar.

b. The high total cost of police buildings is explained by the high priority their construction was assigned. Prior to the movement of any people a police post was constructed in the “new village” (Pelzer, . Yale Review, Vol. 41 [03. 1952], 400).Google Scholar

17. Federation of Malaya, Progress Report on the Development Plans of the Federation of Malaya, 1950–1952, 61 and 97.Google Scholar

18. Miller, 187. L.N. 85/51 Emergency (Amendment No. 4) Regulations, 1951 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948) permitted the Mentri Besar of any Malay state and the Resident Commissioner of a Settlement to appoint any person as a competent authority to prescribe work and/or construction to be accomplished in the interest of public safety or for the maintenance of public order. Section (4) provides for costs to be apportioned between owners or occupiers affected.

19. Robinson, , 114–115Google Scholar. See also: L.N. 360/51 Emergency (Amendment No. 9) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 250/50 Emergency (Control of Shops in Specified Areas) Regulations, 1950; L.N. 314/50 Emergency (Control of Shops in Specified Areas) (Amendment) Regulations. 1950; L.N. 529/50 Emergency (Control of Shops in Specified Areas) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1950; L.N. 70/50 Emergency (Restriction of Movement of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 1950; L.N. 102/50 Emergency (Restriction of Movement of Foodstuffs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1950; L.N. 52/51 Emergency (Control of Shops in Specified Areas) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 127/51 Emergency (Control of Shops in Specified Areas) (Amendment) [sic] Regulations. 1951; L.N. 164/51 Emergency (Control of Shops and Movement of Commodities in Specified Areas) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 505/51 Emergency (Control of Shops and Movement of Commodities in Specified Areas) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1951; and L.N. 506/51 Emergency (Restriction of Movement of Foodstuffs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951 [all of the above statutes are based on F. of M. No. 10 of 1948].

20. Miller, . 219Google Scholar. The “new village” “after-care program” described above is the “model” village. Any attempt to confirm the extent of “after-care” the average village experienced is discouraging due to the paucity of evidence. Based on personal interviews and correspondence with eye witnesses it appears that the “model” village was rarely established. However, most villages seem to have been afforded more than the minimum level of “aftercare” — one school. Without onsite field research the level of services provided to each village, or the average village, appears to be unanswerable.

21. Pelzer, , Yale Review, Vol. 41 (03, 1952), 400Google Scholar; Bartlett, , 50Google Scholar; Stead, , Geographical Magazine. Vol. XXVII (04, 1955), 649Google Scholar; Dobby, , Malayan Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol. 1 (1953), 4Google Scholar. For a detailed description of a “typical” resettlement village see: Hamzah-Sendut, , “Rasah — A New Resettlement Village in Malaya,” Asian Sunvey, Vol. 1 No. 9 (11, 1961), 21–26.Google Scholar

22. Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act, 1960 (No. 13), s. 11. “No person, other than a citizen, shall be eligible to occupy a rural holding so long as such holding continues to be State land (Land [Group Settlement Areas] Act, 1960 [No. 13], s. 19).

23. See Annual Report of the Federation of Malaya (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1955).Google Scholar

24. For a detailed discussion of the educational and public service facilities provided for the “new villages,” see, Dobby, E.G.H., “Resettlement Transforms Malaya: A Case History of Relocating the Population of an Asian Plural Society,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. I, No 3 (10 1952), 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (Federation of Malaya No. 10 of 1948).

26. Although this paper deals primarily with the Emergency Regulations, it should be noted that during the period of the Emergency, rules, regulations, and amendments continued to be made under the Malayan Union Ordinances, the Federation of Malaya Ordinances, the British Military Administrative Proclamations, the Enactments of the former Federated Malay States, the Ordinance of the former Straits Settlements, and Enactments of the former Unfederated Malay States. Moreover, during the Emergency, the Emergency Regulations were used to amend rules, regulations, and amendments to laws under the above cited authorities.

27. Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (Federation of Malaya No. 10 of 1948, 4 [I]).

28. In all of the writings of Victor Purcell concerning the Emergency he has expressed the opinion that the legislative measures passed during the Emergency were dictated from Whitehall. Purcell has been especially critical of those measures passed during the tenure of General Sir Gerald Templer as High Commissioner (Purcell, , The Revolution…102).Google Scholar

29. B.M.A. Proclamation No. 72.

30. The Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948 (G.N. No. 6, February 5. 1948, No. 1. Vol. 1), s. 51 and 52. See also Malaya (Federation), The Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948 (as amended) (Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, 1956)Google Scholar

31. Malaya (Federation) Department of Information, Communist Banditry in Malaya: The Emergency, 06 1948-06 1951.Google Scholar

32. Miller, . 77–81.Google Scholar

33. Malaya (Federation) Department of Public Relations, Communist Banditry in Malaya: The Emergency, 06 1948-12 1948, 2.Google Scholar

34. Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948).

35. Proclamation, The Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948), (C.N. No. 1921, July 13, 1948, No. 12, Vol. 1).

36. Emergency Regulations, 1948 (G.N. No. 1953, July 15, 1948, No. 12, Vol. 1).

37. Resolution of the Legislative Council (C.N. No. 2070, July 31, 1948, No 13, Vol. 1).

38. Emergency Regulations, 1951 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948), R. 17 (1) (a):

39. The phrase “the High Commissioner in Council” means the High Commissioner acting after consultation with the Federal Executive Council (but not necessarily in accordance with the advice of the Federal Executive Council (The Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948 [C.N. No. 6, February 5, 1946, No 1, Vol. 1, s. 30 and 32).

40. A Federal Citizen was defined during this period as any subject of His Highness the Ruler of any State; any British subject born in either of the Settlements who is a permanent resident in the Federation; any British subject born in any of the territories now comprising the Federation, whose father was at the date of the birth of such British subject, or thereafter became or becomes, permanently resident in such territories; any person born in any of the territories now comprising the Federation who habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay customs; any other person born in any of the territories comprising the Federation, both of whose parents were born in any such territories and were or are, at the date of birth of such person, or thereafter become or became, permanently resident in such territories; and any person whose father is (was if father deceased), at the date of birth of that person's birth a Federal Citizen (The Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948 [G.N. No. 6, February 5, 1948, No. 1, Vol. 1], s. 124 [I]). Moreover, Federal Citizenship could be acquired by application if the applicant was born in any of the territories now comprising the Federation and had been resident in such territories for eight out of the twelve years preceding his application; had been a resident in such territories for fifteen out of the twenty years preceding his application; was of good character; had an adequate knowledge of the Malay or English language; had made a Declaration of Permanent Settlement; and was willing to take the Citizenship Oath (Ibid., s. 125 [1]).

41. Emergency Regulations, 1951 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948), R. 17C (1).

42. Ibid., R. 17D (11). All persons detained in the Federation of Malaya under the provisions of the Emergency Regulations were, while in detention, subject to the rules and regulations prescribed by: C.N. 2032/48 Emergency (Detained Persons) Regulations, 1948; L.N. 247/49 Emergency (Detained Persons) Regulations, 1949; L.N. 639/49 Emergency (Detained Persons) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1949; L.N. 156/50 Emergency (Detained Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 1950; L.N. 219/50 Emergency (Detained Persons) (Amendment [sic] Regulations, 1950; L.N. 165/51 Emergency (Detained Officers) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 20/52 Emergency (Detained Officers) (Amendment) Regulations, 1952; L.N. 1/52 Emergency (Detained Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 1952; L.N. 329/53 Emergency (Detained Persons) Regulations, 1953; L.N. 517/53 Emergency (Detained Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 1954; and L.N. 306/55 Emergency (Detained Persons) (Amendment) Regulations, 1955. These regulations prescribed the rules necessary to administer the extensive detention facilities that were required during the Emergency (see Appendix A, Emergency [Detained Persons] Regulations, 1953, for additional details).

43. F.M.S. Cap. 38 as amended by the Banishment Ordinance, 1948 (F. of M. No 5 of 1948).

44. Ibid., 15–16. Hanrahan, 65, states that 606 Chinese were deported in 1948 and 10,300 Chinese were deported in 1949. However, he fails lo rite the authority for his figures.

45. Miller, , 134Google Scholar. A major exception to the non-use of Emergency Regulation 17D should be noted. On November 7, 1951 the town of Tras, Pahang was completely destroyed, and the 2,000 inhabitants placed in detention. Tras had long been a source of trouble to the Government; the men who had killed High Commissioner Sir Henry Gurney were from Tras. Thus, the decision to obliterate the town completely, in addition to placing its inhabitants in detention (Miller, , 196)Google Scholar. For a further discussion of the destruction of Tras and additional examples of this type of punishment under Regulation 17D See, Calvocoressi, Peter, Survey of International Affairs, 1951 (London: Oxford University Press, 1954), 466–467.Google Scholar

46. Bartlett, , 48Google Scholar and Robinson, , 95Google Scholar. Athulathmudali, L.W., “Preventive Detention in the Federation of Malaya,” Journal of the International Commission of Jurists, Vol. III, No. 2 (Winter, 1961), 100Google Scholar, citing official figures, states that during the Emergency 12.220 people were banished from the Federation. However, Mr. Athulathmudali does not clarify the use of the word banish. The discrepancy between the figures of 26,000 and 12,220 can best be explained by assuming that the official figures do not include those persons who, in lieu of detention, volunteered to be repatriated.

47. Emergency Regulations, 1951 (F. of M. No. 10 of 1948) R. 17 (4A) (a) (iv); and R. 17D (6A).

48. Bartlett, 48. The main center for rehabilitation was located at Taiping. although other smaller centres existed (Robinson, , 95).Google Scholar

49. Since 1946 juvenile courts have been established in Malaya to deal with children who have committed a criminal offense or are beyond parental control or are in need of care and protection (I.A. Sheridan, 383). In (he lederation of Malaya juvenile courts were established in the- vaiious Stales rind regulated by the Juvenile Courts Ordinance. 1947 M.U. No. 38).

50. The Mentri Besar of a State and the Resident Commissioner of a Settlement could appoint any Magistrate to be a competent authority for the purpose of this regulation.

51. Ibid., R. 17EA (3). Sec G.N. 2033/48 Emergency (Registration Areas) Regulations, 1948 for a detailed discussion of the requirements for. and restrictions of obtaining a registration identification card.

52. Ibid., R. 17EA (11) — (15). For a detailed discussion of the role of the Royal Federation of Malaya Police Force, the Special Constabulary, and the Police Volunteer Reserve see, Moran, J.W.G., Spearhead in Malaya (London: Peter Davies, 1959)Google Scholar. Essential to the defense of the “new villages” and the Malay Kampongs were the home guards who augmented the regular police force structure by performing “look-out” and routine guard duties on the outskirts of the villages. Although initially of poor quality, the home guards in many villages replaced members of the police forces. In the “new villages” the ability to maintain law and order by the use of only home guard forces was a mark of progress and a demonstration of adherence to the policies of the Government (Malaya [Federation] Department of Public Relations, Communist Banditry in Malaya: The Emergency, June 1948 – December 1948, 3 and 11, Miller, , 220Google Scholar, Bartlett, , 77Google Scholar, and Hanrahan, , 74.Google Scholar

53. L.N. 1/51 Emergency (Control of Building) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 119/51 Emergency (Control of Buildings [sic]) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 37/51 Emergency (Control of Building) (Amendment No. 1) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 117/51 Emergency (Control of Dulang Paesea) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 52/51 Emergency (Control of Shops in Specified Areas) (Amendment) Regulations 1951; L.N. 127/51 Emergency (Control of Shops in Specified Areas) (Amendment [sic] Regulations, 1951; L.N. 164/51 Emergency (Control of Shops and Movement of Commodities in Specified Areas) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 505/51 Emergency (Control of Shops and Movement of Commodities in Specified Areas) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1951, L.N. 516/51 Emergency (Export Duty on Tin) (Special Provisions) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 572/51 Emergency (Export Duty on Tin) (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951 L.N. 24/51 Emergency (Registration Areas) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951; L.N. 506/51 Emergency (Restriction of Movement of Foodstuffs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951; and L.N. 376/51 Emergency (Rubber Control) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951.

54. Cited by Miller, , 189.Google Scholar

55. Smith, T.F.. “The Recent Elections in Malaya, 1959,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. XXXIII, No. 1 (03, 1960), 40–41.Google Scholar

50. Gullick, J.M., Malaya (London: Ernest Benn, Ltd., 1963), 226–227.Google Scholar

57. L.N. 7/51 Emergency (Control of Schools) Regulations, 1951. Also L.N. 283/53 Emergency (Amendment No. 3) Regulations, 1953 provided that if, due to a movement of persons under Regulation 17FA, 10 or more children between the ages of 6 and 12 became residents of a controlled area the owner or occupier of land within the controlled area or any other person, could be ordered to build, to the satisfaction of the Registrar of Schools, a school building.

58. Dobby, , Economic Development and Cultural Change. Vol I No 3 (10 1952), 176.Google Scholar

59. Internal Security Act, 1960 (No. 18) and Federation of Malaya Constitution, Part XI. In general these grant emergency powers quite similar to those exercised during the Emergency. For a detailed discussion of the current restrictions available during emergencies see, Sheridan, L.A., The Federation of Malaya Constitution (Singapore: University of Malaya Law Review 1960) 137–139Google Scholar; Sheridan, , Malaya and Singapore ……, 58–64Google Scholar; Athulathmudali, , Journal of the International Commission of Jurists, Vol. III, No. 2 (Winter, 1961), 100–104Google Scholar; and Hickling, R.H., “The First Five Years of the Federation of Malaya Constitution,’ Malaya Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1962), 184–185.Google Scholar