No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
The 10. 27 million Peninsular Malaysian community comprises approximately 53 per cent Malays, 35 per cent Chinese, 11 per cent Indians, and 1 per cent other races. This ethnic pluralism evolved during the increased British political and economic involvement from 1850 to 1930, when large numbers of Chinese and Indians were brought in as cheap labourers to work the tin mines and rubber estates. In the beginning the majority of these immigrants usually returned to their native countries after a few years, but later an increasingly significant number decided to stay permanently, so that by 1957 more than two-thirds of them were local born.
1 Ministry of Finance Malaysia, Economic Report 1976/77 (Kuala Lumpur, 1976), p. 4.Google Scholar
2 See Sandhu, K. S., Indians in Malaya: Some Aspects of Their Immigration and Settlement (London, 1969)Google Scholar; and Saw, S. H., “Trends and Differentials in International Migration in Malaya”, Ekonomi 4 (1963): 87–113Google Scholar.
3 See Jackson, R. N., Immigration Labour and the Development of Malaya, 1786-1920 (Kuala Lumpur, 1961), p. 7Google Scholar ; and Parmer, N. J., Colonial Labour Policy and Administration: A History of Labour in the Rubber Plantation Industry in Malaya, c. 1910-1941 (New York, 1960), p. 5Google Scholar.
4 Fell, H., 1957 Population Census of the Federation of Malaya, Report no. 14, Dept. of Statistics (Kuala Lumpur, 1960), p. 16.Google Scholar
5 Purcell, V., The Chinese in Malaya (Kuala Lumpur, 1948), pp. 119–41.Google Scholar
6 All monetary units are Malaysian dollars. A Malaysian dollar was approximately US$0. 42, on 8 June 1981.
7 Ministry of Finance Malaysia, Economic Report 1976/77 (Kuala Lumpur, 1976), p. 4.Google Scholar
8 Hirschman, C., “Determinants of Ethnic Inequality in Peninsular Malaysia”, UMBC Economic Review 12, no. 1 (1976): 25–37.Google Scholar
9 Bevan, J. W. L., A Study of Yields, Labour Inputs and Incomes on Rubber Smallholdings in Coastal Areas of Selangor (Kuala Lumpur, 1962), Tables 56–70.Google Scholar
10 Huang, Y., “The Behaviour of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Farmers: A Case Study”, Journal of Development Studies 10, no. 2 (1974): 175–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Sen, A. K., “Size of Holding and Productivity”, Political and Economic Weekly, Feb. 1964, pp 323–26.Google Scholar
12 The production function used was the transcendental functional form. For details of the models and results, see Sepien, Abdullah bin, “Technical and Allocative Efficiency in the Malaysian Rubber Small-holdings: A Production Function Approach”, (Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, 1978), chapters 2 and 7Google Scholar.
13 The opportunity costs of Malay and Chinese labour were computed using the procedure suggested in Sen, A. K., “Size of Holding and Productivity”, Political and Economic Weekly, Feb. 1964, pp. 323–26Google Scholar.
14 Mohd. Noor Ghani, “Socio-Economic and Attitudinal Factors in Eradicating Poverty among Rubber Smallholders” (Papers presented at the Seminar-cum-Workshop on Modernization of Rubber Smallholdings, jointly sponsored by the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia [RRIM] and Rubber Industry Development Authority [RISDA], Kuala Lumpur, 1977).
15 MacAndrews, Colin, “Mobility and Modernisation: A Study of the Malaysian Federal Land Development Authority and Its Role in Modernising the Rural Malay” (Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976), p. 63.Google Scholar
16 Cupak and gantang are units for measuring rice volume in Malaysia. Four cupaks make a gantang, and the prefix se denotes one. For studies on attitudes of padi farmers in Malaysia, see Taib, Abu Bakar bin, “Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Rice Farm Productivities: The Krian Irrigation Scheme, Malaysia”, (M. A. D. E. thesis, Australian National University, 1976)Google Scholar ; and Omar, Afifuddin bin Haji, The Social, Political and Economic Framework ofMuda Rice Farmers: A Historical Perspective, Publication no. 23, MUDA Agricultural Development Authority, Alor Star, Kedah, 1973Google Scholar.
17 Alatas, Syed Hussain, The Myth of the Lazy Native (London, 1977), pp. 166–83.Google Scholar
18 Sepien, Abdullah bin, “Technical and Allocative Efficiency in the Malaysian Rubber Smallholdings: A Production Function Approach”, (Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, 1978), p. 223.Google Scholar
19 Selvadurai, S., Survey of Rubber Smallholders in Parit, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur, 1975), p. 41.Google Scholar
20 Ching, Lim Sow, Land Development Schemes in Peninsular Malaysia: A Study of Benefits and Costs (Kuala Lumpur: Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia, 1976), p. 233.Google Scholar
21 Singh, S., “Economic Aspects of Three New Land Development Schemes Organised by the Federal Land Development Authority in the Federation of Malaya”, (Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, 1965), p. 284.Google Scholar
22 MacAndrews, Colin, “Mobility and Modernisation: A Study of the Malaysian Federal Land Development Authority and Its Role in Modernising the Rural Malay” (Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976), p. 34.Google Scholar
23 Third Malaysia Plan, 1976-1980 (Kuala Lumpur, 1976), p. 7.Google Scholar
24 Wafa, Syed Hussain, Land Development Strategy: An Empirical Study (Kuala Lumpur, 1972), p. 197.Google Scholar