¹ For instance the remarks made by Mr. T. H. Miller in his chairman's speech at the Annual General Meeting of the Rubber Growers' Association in 1960. Estate spokesmen also noted that these difficulties would encourage the development of rubber plantations elsewhere, notably Africa (as indeed they did).

² Dr. Rudner writes that the policies of the colonial administration diverted resources from the rural economy (p. 36). In view of his insistence on the fundamental changes allegedly brought about by political independence, it is worth noting that major components of the Malaysian development plans since independence also divert resources from the rural economy to the urban economy. State sponsored subsidised industrialisation is one example. The preferential treatment of the urban sector compared to the rural sector which is a characteristic feature of economic policy throughout the less developed countries has often been noted by many development economists of international standing, among them Sir Arthur Lewis and Professor H. Myint.

³ Dr. Rudner writes in the penultimate paragraph of his article: “Malayan rubber development was effectively retarded by post-liberation policy. Central to this Colonialimposed policy was a determination to restore the classical pre-war structure of Malaya's rubber industry, without real regard for comparative costs. This was essentially a custodial strategy, aimed primarily at maintaining the predominance of the privileged British estates. Innovation, where it involved the low-cost smallholding sector, was therefore subject to restriction and rank discrimination in policy terms. Not only did this strategy imply a redirection of economic resources away from the rural economy, but it further posed grave political consequences for Malaya. An independent and prosperous smallholding peasantry was being gradually undermined, and the long-run competitive position of Malayan rubber placed in jeopardy. Reconstruction policies limited to the Colonial-style estates were countered by anti-development among the large and potentially dynamic native smallholding sector”. These allegations bear little resemblance to the policies pursued between 1948 and 1957. The paragraph leads up to the statement in the next paragraph about the decay of the Malayan rubber industry which as we have seen is simply untrue.

⁴ Some of the topics discussed by Dr. Rudner in these two sections were also discussed in some of my publications at the time, especially in my Report on a Visit to the Rubber Growing Smallholdings of Malaya (submitted 1946, published 1948) to which Dr. Rudner refers repeatedly. But they were discussed as subordinate topics. Moreover there was some justification for discussing policies then current.

⁵ The fact that 1948 was the date of the publication of my book on the rubber industry and of my report on smallholdings certainly does not mean that 1948 is an appropriate terminal point for a discussion on Malayan rubber policy.