¹ On pre-war British colonial labor policy and practice see Parmer, J. Norman, Colonial Labour Policy and Administration (New York, 1960);Google ScholarGamba, Charles, The Origins of Trade Unionism in Malaya (Singapore, 1962), ch. I;Google Scholar and International Labour Office, The Trade Union Situation in the Federation of Malaya. Report of a Mission from the International Labour Office (Geneva, 1962), esp. pp. 24–28.Google Scholar

² For a history of early post-war labor relations and the rise of the Communist-led Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions, see Stenson, M. R., Industrial Conflict in Malaya (London, 1970);Google Scholar and Charles Gamba, op. cit., ch. 7. For an official account of the problem see Donnison, F. S. V., British Military Administration in the Far East (London, H.M.S.O., 1956), pp. 238, 312–13;Google Scholar and Awberry, S. S. and Dalley, F. W., Labour and Trade Union Organization in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore (London, 1948), col. 234.Google Scholar The aims and tactics of the communist trade unions and the countermeasures adopted by the government have been dealt with by Hanrahan, G. Z., The Communist Struggle in Malaya (New York, 1956), ch. 4.Google ScholarJosey, Alex, Trade Unionism in Malaya (Singapore, 1954), provides a sympathetic left-wing treatment of contemporary issues of labor policy.Google Scholar

³ For a detailed treatment of labor policy and trade unionism during this period of colonial tutelage, 1948–1955, see Stenson, op. cit..; Gamba, op. cit.Google Scholar

⁴ Yang di-Pertuan Agong Royal Address, Legislative Council Proceedings,4 December 1957, col. 3511–12.Google Scholar

⁵ Chief Minister, L. C. Proc.,14 March 1956(Merdeka Debate,) col. 897–8.Google Scholar

⁶ Narayanan, P. P. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,14 March 1956(Merdeka Debate), col. 912.Google Scholar

⁷ Minister of Commerce and Industry, L. C. Proc.,12 July 1956, col. 1456.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. L. C. Proc.,addresses by the Chief Minister,14 March 1956, col. 898; and by the Minister of the Interior and Justice, 19 February 1959, col. 6525.Google Scholar

⁹ Karim, Énche R. A. Abdul (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,9 December 1957, col. 3748.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Minister of Interior and Justice, L. C. Proc.,19 February 1959, col. 6524.Google Scholar

¹¹ Narayanan, P. P. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,23 April 1959, col. 6768–9.Google Scholar

¹² Singh, K. Karam (SF), Dewan Ra'ayat Proceedings,21 June 1960, col. 1273–4.Google Scholar

¹³ Minister of Labour, D. R. Proc.,4 December 1959, col 1120.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Milne, and Ratnam, , ‘Politics and Finance in Malaya’, Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies (1965), pp. 192–3;Google Scholar and Siew, Lim Kean (SF), D. R. Proc.,4 December 1959, col. 1112–13.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Addresses by DrAun, Lim Swee, D. R. Proc.,26 April 1962, col. 64;Google Scholar and Hussin, Abdul Razak b. Haji (UMNO), 12 March 1963, col. 4051.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Asst. Minister of Labour, D. R. Proc.,12 March 1963, col. 4051–3.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, L. C. Proc.,18 June 1958, col. 4775; and 11 December 1957, col. 3987.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Minister of Labour, L. C. Proc.,8 December 1958, col. 5641.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Thaver, K. V. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,8 December 1958, col. 5624.Google Scholar

²⁰ Addresses by Narayanan, P. P. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,8 December 1958, col. 5617–18; and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, col. 5635.Google Scholar

²¹ The official explanation offered to the Legislative Council for these arrests claimed that the four trade unionists were ‘guided and advised’ by militant, Communist-influenced ‘Middle Road’ trade union leaders in Singapore; that they possessed ‘communist’ books and books having ‘communist association’; and that they kept ‘communist and workers’ songs: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, L. C. Proc.,9 December 1955, col. 3788–9. The NUFGW was later banned.Google Scholar

²² Thaver, K. V. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,7 December 1957, col. 3626–7.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. L. C. Proc.,7–9 December 1957,, addresses by Thaver, K. V. (MTUC), col. 3626–7; P. P. Narayanan (MTUC), col. 3719; and Minister of Labour, col. 4180.Google Scholar

²⁴ The reason given for the ban on public May Day celebrations was that communists would try to manipulate such labor symbols ‘to put over ideas which tend to sow disloyalty and to instill in the workers revolutionary ideas and violence’: Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, L. C. Proc.,1 May 1958, col. 4719.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. Gamba, Charles, ‘Malayan Labour: Merdeka and After’, India Quarterly (1958), p. 219.Google Scholar

²⁶ L. C. Proc.,7 May 1957, col. 2629.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. L. C. Proc.,16 November 1956, col. 2350.Google Scholar

²⁸ Thaver, K. V. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,12 November 1956, col. 1859–60.Google Scholar

²⁹ Addresses by the Minister of Commerce and Industry, L. C. Proc.,8 May 1957, col. 2738; and Minister of Labour, 23 April 1959, col. 6763–4.Google Scholar

³⁰ Chairman U. A. Granthan report to the Chartered Bank annual meeting,4 April 1962.Google Scholar

³¹ Minister of Labour, L. C. Proc.,23 April 1959, col. 6763–4. For a discussion of the provisions of the 1959 law and its impact on the trade unions, see the I.L.O.'s The Trade Union Situation in the Federation of Malaya, pp. 52–72.Google Scholar

³² Thaver, K. V. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,23 April 1959, col. 6764–5.Google Scholar

³³ High Commissioner, L. C. Proc.,31 November 1955, col. 144.Google Scholar

³⁴ Minister of Labour, L. C. Proc.,12 December 1957, col. 4180–2.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Chairman SirJohn, Hay report to Kamuning (Perak) Rubber and Tin Co. Ltd general meeting,16 November 1955.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. Warren, W. M. report to Malayan Chamber of Mines annual meeting,11 July 1956;Google Scholar and Rick, J. H. report to Tronoh Mines Ltd annual meeting,16 November 1956.Google Scholar

³⁸ Rick, J. H. report to Tronoh Mines Ltd annual meeting,16 September 1956.Google Scholar referred to followed arbitrary dismissals of workers and their replacement by non-unionized labor. See also report by Turner, E. R. to Malayan Mining Employers Association annual meeting,27 May 1959.Google Scholar

³⁹ Nair, V. D., (Manager, Prang Besar Rubber Estate), ‘The Strike Weapon is Outmoded’, in The Planter, reprinted in Malaya, (November, 1960), pps. 30–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Houghton, R. G. D. (Commission for Labour to 1960), ‘The Big Task Ahead for Malaya's Rubber Industry’, Straits Budget, 25 May 1960.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The former Labour Department and office of the TUAM were merged after 1957 into a new Department of Labour and Industrial Relations: however, personnel changes at the top proceeded slowly and, in any event, old ideas died hard.Google Scholar

⁴² Bakar, Enche Abu, L. C. Proc.,15 March 1956, col. 1050–1.Google Scholar

⁴³ Seenivasagam, D. R. (PPP), D. R. Proc.,9 January 1962, col. 2458–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. Seenivasagam, , D. R. Proc.,13 December 1962, col. 2883–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Karim, Enche R. A. Abdul (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,8 December 1955, col. 727.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.,30 November 1959, col. 607–8; 22 April 1960, col. 231.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Thaver, K. V. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,3 December 1955, col. 349. On union weakness in establishing themselves as partners in industrial relations see The Trade Union Situation in the Federation of Malaya, pp. 81–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. The Trade Union Situation in the Federation of Malaya, pp. 75–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Narayanan, P. P. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,8 December 1955, col. 731.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.,30 November 1959, col. 609.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Addresses by Enche Abdul Karim, L. C. Proc.,8 December 1955, col. 727–8; and Enche Abdul Hamid, 23 April 1959, col. 6770–1.Google Scholar

⁵² Tan Phock Kin (SF), D. R. Proc.,24 January 1962, col 3692.Google Scholar

⁵³ President Yeoh Guan Leong, address to All-Malayan Estate Staff Union Conference, 25 September 1960 (Straits Times); and David, V. (SF), D. R. Proc.,21 April 1961, col. 211–12.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.,24 February 1960,Google Scholar col. 1901–13; and Emmanuel, John, NUPW Deputy General Secretary,press statement in Ipoh,24 April 1960 (Straits Budget, 4 May 1960, p. 7) on this point.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Asst. Minister of Labour, D. R. Proc.,19 December 1962, col. 3458.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Addresses by David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.,24 February 1960, col. 1901–3; and Minister of Labour, col. 1914.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Minister of Labour, D. R. Proc.,18 December 1962, col. 3382.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Economic Adviser, L. C. Proc.,13 December 1957, col. 4250.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Narayanan, P. P. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,8 December 1955; 31 July 1958.31 July 1958.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Asst. Minister of Labour, D. R. Proc.,30 November 1959, col. 1862.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Yang di-Pertuan Agong Royal Address, D. R. Proc.,23 May 1963, col. 221.Google Scholar

⁶² Minister for Labour, L. C. Proc.,12 December 1957.Google Scholar

⁶³ David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.,26 June 1962, col. 941–3, 945–6.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Minister for Labour, D. R. Proc.,3 December 1955, col. 398.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Cf. addresses by Minister of Commerce and Industry, L. C./D.R. Proc.,11 July 1956, col. 1335; and Prime Minister, 30 November 1959, col. 657–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. addresses by Minister of Commerce and Industry, L.C./D.R. Proc.,31 July 1958, col. 4942–3; and Minister of Labour, 4 December 1959, col. 1106.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Government refused to collect even simple unemployment figures because of the dispersal of population (Minister of Labour, D. R. Proc.,25 November 1959, col. 186) and it was only in 1962 that Malaya undertook a comprehensive employment survey.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Minister for Labour, L. C. Proc.,17 March 1958, col. 4339–41 on this point.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Relief projects of limited scope and scant success were initiated in certain urban centres, but not in hard-hit tin and rubber areas for fear of redeploying labor away from their normal employers.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Prime Minister, D. R. Proc.,23 May 1963, col. 126.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. Nair, V. D., ‘The Strike Weapon is Outmoded’, p. 30. See also SF complaint on this practice: Lim Kean Siew, D. R. Proc.,4 December 1959, col. 110.Google Scholar

⁷² Out of a total labor force of 2,126,182 in 1957, some 119,000 were in government service (excluding the armed forces, municipalities and public enterprises). This compared to 614,000 in the rubber industry. On the position of government-sector unions in the Malayan labor movement, see The Trade Union Situation in the Federation of Malaya.Google Scholar

⁷³ Addresses by the Chief Minister, L. C. Proc.,14 March 1956, col. 1020–1; and Economic Adviser, 9 December 1957, col. 3772.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Minister of Finance, D. R. Proc.,25 November 1959, col. 124–6.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Thus the Official Side lacked authority to make any ‘major’ decisions involving ‘a lot of money’, which had to be referred to the Cabinet: Cf. Prime Minister, D. R. Proc.,29 November 1959, col. 1699.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The NUFGW accounted for about a quarter of the man-days lost in 1956, and brought about substantial improvements in wages and working conditions using strikes as a ready weapon (Federation of Malaya Annual Report (1956), p. 81). The union was banned in 1957 for late submission of its annual statement to the Registrar of Trade Unions.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Narayanan, P. P. (MTUC), L. C. Proc.,15 November 1956, col. 2256–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cf. Singh, K. Karam (SF), D. R. Proc.,25 April 1960, col. 534; 28 April 1960, col. 835; 21 June 1960, col. 1272–3.Google Scholar In a strike at the Seremban Rubber Estate police were accused of ‘most villainous’ practices including arrests of strike leaders, assaults on picketers, attempts to ensnare strikers by tendering ‘sinister advice’, attempts to ‘smuggle’ strike-breakers into the estate in a police vehicle, and refusal to detain ‘armed thugs’ hired by management, when reported by strikers. At least one major employer confessed reliance on police support in using strike-breakers to break strikes: Rick, J. H., report to Tronoh Mines Ltd annual meeting,16 November 1956.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The sliding wage geared to the price of rubber was retained, however. On the ‘go-slow’ see The Colonial Territories (1956–1957) Cmd. 195, para. 868;Google Scholar and Gamba, Charles, The National Union of Plantation Workers (Singapore, 1962), ch. 6.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cf. Mullaly, A. E. report to Consolidated Salack Rubber Estates Ltd annual meetings,30 October 1956,Google Scholar and Coghlan, P. B., report to Anglo-Asian Rubber Plantations Ltd annual meeting,4 December 1956.Google Scholar

⁸¹ According to the Federation of Malayan Annual Report (1956), p. 82, the trade union situation in the rubber industry had now come ‘to resemble the situation which exists in the better organized industries in Britain.’Google ScholarSee also The Trade Union Situation in the Federation of Malaya, pp. 40–2.Google Scholar

⁸² This refers to basic wage rates and does not take account of cyclical fluctuations in rubber wages geared to commodity prices. The latter tended downwards from 1958 to 1960, re-bounded slightly during the boom of 1960 only to fall back to previous levels in 1961 and 1962. Other wages remained virtually constant throughout. On annual wage trends in Malaya see the Colombo Plan, Annual Reports of the Consultative Committee 1959 to 1963.Google Scholar

⁸³ L. C. Proc.,7 May 1957, col. 2629.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Professor Raul Prebisch, first Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, has argued that the failure of primary-exporting economies to achieve permanent higher wage levels during prosperity exposes them to deteriorating real terms of trade over the trade cycle, and results in an increasing development gap between themselves and industrialized countries that do. Cf. Prebisch, R., ‘The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems,’, in Economic Bulletin For Latin America (February 1962), pp. 1–6.Google ScholarThis thesis has been incorporated in the official report of the Secretary General to UNCTAD, Towards a New Trade Policy for Development, (New York: United Nations, 1964), (E/CONF. 46/3), ch. 2, esp. pp. 14–17.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ From 88 unions with 177,900 members at the end of March 1957 (Federation of Malaya Annual Report (1957) p. 60) membership in industrial trade unions declined to 126,000 at the end of 1960 (Official Year Book (1962) p. 179) and increased to 171,000 at the end of 1962 (Official Year Book (1963)). The number of unions was then 90.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Hill, Justice R. D. R., Report of a Commission of Inquiry, February 1961.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cf. David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.,10 December 1962, col. 2618–20. The unions lacked confidence not only in arbitration, but in the government's readiness to implement awards with which it disagreed.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Cf. D. R. Proc.,10 December 1962, col. 2615–47.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Deputy Prime Minister, D. R. Proc.,10 December 1962, col. 2634. The SF retorted that the provision of cheap public services should be borne by the Treasury and not by low-paid labor.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Straits Times, 15 January 1963.Google Scholar

⁹¹ David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.,10 December 1962, col. 2621–4.Google Scholar

⁹² Straits Times, 2 January 1963.Google Scholar

⁹³ Straits Times, 2 January 1963.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The RUM had long demanded government servant status for railwaymen, based on the Railway Ordinance of 1948. However, the Attorney General in 1951 issued an interpretation that railwaymen were not entitled to recognition as government servants, and this remained the basis of subsequent policy. Both the Hill Court of Inquiry (1961) and the Barakbah Court of Inquiry (1963) felt that the railwaymen merit the privileges of government servants. The transformation of the Railways into a corporation with effect from January 1964 ended the matter once and for all, although the RUM bitterly denounced the move and signified its intention to take the case to the High Court (Straits Times, 9 May 1963).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ On wage and productivity gains in early 1963 see the Colombo Plan (1963) Annual Report of the Consultative Committee (London, H.M.S.O., 1964), Cmd., 2529, p. 155.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Minister of Labour to National Union of Commercial Workers Conference,(Straits Times,28 May 1963).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Following deferment of the tin strike, the All-Malayan Mining Industries Staff Union asked the Prime Minister to intervene to compel a settlement in an industry long-resistant to collective bargaining (Straits Times, 12 August 1963).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Assistant Minister of Labour, D. R. Proc.,9 February 1961, col. 5299–300.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ For an evaluation of Malayan trade unionism at the end of 1962 see the Report of the Registrar of Trade Unions (1962). See also The Trade Union Situation in the Federation of Malaya, pp. 33.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Thaver, K. V., MTUC General Secretary, Ipoh, 9 October 1960 (Straits Times).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Abraham, G., President of Penang Port Commission Employees Union, Penang, 23 November 1960 (Straits Budget, 30 November 1960, p. 10).Google Scholar

¹⁰² David, V. (SF-MTUC), D. R. Proc.20 December 1962, col. 3605–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ For a survey of developments in Malaysian labor policy after 1963, see Raza, M. A., ‘Legislative and Public Policy Developments in Malaysia's Industrial Relations’, The Journal of the Developing Areas (April, 1969), pp. 362–71.Google Scholar