研究課題番号　１８４０１００８

マレーシアにおける貧困問題の地域的・民族集団的多様性に関する研究

立命館大学政　

文学部　　

（基盤研究（Ｂ））研究成果報告書

　　　　　　　　　

藤　

巻　

正　

己

平成21年３月

マレーシアにおける貧困問題の地域的・民族集団的多様性に関する研究

（研究課題番号　18401008）

平成18年度～平成20年度科学研究費補助金（基盤研究（Ｂ））

研 究 成 果 報 告 書

平成21年３月

研究代表者　藤　巻　正　己（立命館大学　文学部）

ii

21 3

18 20 (B) (18401008 )

3

COE 20

Geograpgy Section, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia Dr.Norizan Md Noor, Dr. Tarmiji Masron, Dr. Ruslan Rainis

18 5,800 1,740 7,540

19 4,000 1,200 5,200

20 3,400 1,020 4,420

13,200 3,960 17,160

ⅰ

1812 1Norizan bin Md Nor (Universiti Sains Malaysia) ” The Economic and Socio-Cultural

Impacts of Ecotourism on the Minority People in Cameron Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia“

191 27Tarmiji Bin Masron (Universiti Sains Malaysia) ”The Changing of Distribution of

Population and Socio-Economic Condition in East Malaysia, Sarawak” Ruslan Bin Rainis (Universiti Sains Malaysia) ”The Changing Spatial Pattern of

Population Growth, Ethnic Concentrations and Diversity in Peninsular Malaysia since 1970s”

12 2

Voon Phin Keong (Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies : “Fifty Years On: Whither the New Villages in Malaysia?”

205 9

Yahaya Bin Ibrahim (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia): “Tourism and Regional Development in Malaysia”

11 1 2The Socially Deprived and Self-reliance through Tourism

A18 20 18251005

13

Norizan Bin Md Nor Ecotourism Development in Cameron Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia; Participation and Impact on the Orang Asli”

ⅱ

iii

(2)

(1) GIS

(2) (1)basic human needs

GIS

(3)

ⅲ

i

1 1

2 7

3

29

4 43

5 The Chinese New Villages in Malaysia: Impact of Demographic Changes and

Response Strategies Voon, Phin Keong 53

6

85

7

103

8

119

9 The Distribution of Population and Socio-Economic Condition In East Malaysia,

Sarawak Tarmiji Masron & FUJIMAKI Masami 141

151

- 1 -

1957 NewEconomic Policy 1971 90

1980NIES

1980 1997 982020

4601 30 1970 49.3 1987

6.1 2002 5.1

the hard-core poor

1 Bumiputera

(1)2000 2,200 65

26 7.7 1

－ 1－

- 2 -

fujimaki,m. 20

FELDA

1

2000

23,274.7 100.0

21,889.9 94.1

14,248.2 65.1

(11,680.4) (53.4)

( 2,567.8) (11.7)

5,691.9 26.0

1,680.1 7.7

269.7 1.2

1,384.8 5.9

) Department of Statistics, Malaysia: 2002

53.4 11.7Orang Asli

Iban Bidayuh 30Kadazan Kuijau 30

(lain-lain)Baba

－ 2－

- 3 -

Nyonya- geo-history

60

25002004 200 250

1980

3

(2)

18 202

19571963

1965

20

－ 3－

- 4 -

19651965

1963

19571959

18881946

2

1971 New Economic Policy: NEP

New Village1950 60

400

the forgotten people

－ 4－

- 5 -

MIC

lain-lain

Star: 19 January 2004

mukim

the hard-core poor the poverty target groups

2306,000 272 317

NST: Aug.11, 2000: Good intentions alone just not enough in all-out war on poverty

－ 5－

- 6 -

1

GIS

－ 6－

- 7 -

Poverty Eradication Strategy and Development Policy in Malaysia

IKUTA Masato (College of Letters, Ritsumeikan University)

Abstract

When Malaysia was granted independence in 1957, both income and residential distribution patterns clearly differed between its three major ethnic groups of Malays, Indians and Chinese. The Malays were predominantly poor and lived mainly in rural areas in the 1960s. This situation greatly influenced the poverty eradication strategy and even regional development policies of the 1970s and 80s, which targeted the Malays rather than the Chinese and Indians. Indeed, the creation of numerous government authorities helped to launch agricultural development projects aimed at combating poverty across the Malay Peninsula.

Currently, Malaysia, together with Singapore, has the most insignificant share of poor people in Southeast Asia. However, the regional distribution of poverty shows the same pattern in Malaysia as in other South Asian countries, with more people living in poverty in rural areas than in urban areas.

The poverty eradication strategy has evolved to encompass many aspects, including direct policies for eradicating poverty such as financial assistance for fatherless families, improvement of dwellings, and enrolment in vocational and other education systems. On the other hand, as indirect policies, regional development policies have also greatly contributed to eradicating poverty.

With limited information available, we cannot conclude whether direct or indirect policies are more effective for poverty eradication in Malaysia. It is said that the profit generated by poverty eradication projects in developing countries goes straight to the upper and middle classes in society, despite the purpose of the project being to reduce poverty. We believe such a situation might currently exist in Malaysia.

－ 7－

- 8 -

3New Economic Policy NEP 1970 NEP

1990NEP 5 MP

MPMP

MP

Poverty ReductionPoverty Eradication

MP

1980

1970 WHO ILO

1970 1 230

1998 510 0

1970 70 98

－ 8－

- 9 -

1990

1998 40 5020

2 3 11980

75

1990 2000

2

－ 9－

- 10 -

1

Jonathan

1980 1990

199038,000 2007 4,356

2,2832004 5.7 2007 3.6

311,300 209,000 Hardcore poor household 1.2 0.7 67,300 38,400

－ 10 －

- 11 -

1977 2005

10 1970

1970 8080

1980 District Daerah11

( )

2

12 3 12

2

2 3 New Village1940 50

50 400

－ 11 －

- 12 -

Lim13

2121 29

1995 20001980 14

2005 65

15

4 22 1810 7

16

FELDA 19561959 NEP

1970 NEP NEP1960 MP

FELDA RIDA Rural Industrial Development Authority)1966

－ 12 －

- 13 -

MARA FELCLA 1 MP

MP MPMP NEP

MPMP

1970 31 17

MP MP 30 199022

1971 MP 3 18 1

NEP

2

3 MP

3 MP1954 Department of Aborigines

20

District Officer Land Officer

1973 RISDA Rubber Small holders Development AuthorityFELCRA

State Land Office2000 14.8 77

21

4 MP

IDAP

FELCRA

－ 13 －

- 14 - － 14 －

- 15 -

102001 10 10 Third Outline perspective Plan

1990 9 22)

－ 15 －

- 16 -

2

1990 6 7 MP BCIC 7 8

MP 5 8 MP

NEP

8 MP 9 MP8 MP

8 MP 9 MP 9 MP

MP 20102.8

5.78

9 MP 38.8 ha10.3 ha RISDA FELCRA

12

2000FELDA FELCRA 1

5Ministry of Rural

and Regional Development Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry

－ 16 －

- 17 -

Ministry of Woman, Family and Community DevelopmentMinistry of Housing and Local Government

23)

6 12

33 4

5

1970 10 80 9023 24 1998 13 24)

19701984 2000 2404ha

－ 17 －

- 18 -

571ha 25) 1998 197 645ha24,000 13 1998

2000 2 70ha

19905400 2 7000 26)

19902 27)

28) NEP29)

Jomo30 51 1957 NEP 69

2 1970 81NEP

3 1981 851980

4 1986 97

The Promotion of Investment Act5 1997 2003

1970 200029 49

－ 18 －

- 19 -

MP EPU 31 EPU 1961

EPU 1980EPU

32)

1 MP

NEP

2 MP 1970MADA Muda Agricultural Development Authority

LKIM 1971 73DARA KEJORA KADA KETENGAH

19791985 75 34)

1960 80 1966270 ha 1984 440 ha 35)

197022 ha 1990 167 ha 172ha 153 ha 52 47 ha

36) FELDA1980

24

FELDA

FELDA FELDA2

FELDA 2 Bukit Goh338

139 4 37)

3 3 1FELDA

－ 19 －

- 20 -

38)

39)

7,000ha 70 100

－ 20 －

- 21 -

19701980

1983 40)

81970

1970 198642

1968

43)

1992 EPU44) 1970

18

19901990 45

Pahang Tenggara Development Authority Jengka Development Authority

UDA1971 UDA

UDA 2UDA

1999

－ 21 －

- 22 -

66 46) 198097

47)

10

1990

1980 4

33 6 7,00048) 4,900ha 2003

4 13,200

－ 22 －

- 23 -

MARA

UMNO

－ 23 －

- 24 -

Ministry of Welfare ServiceEPU

49)

198090 EPU

2008 3 UMNO

7030 PAS

UMNO50)

UMNO

UMNO

2009 0.551)

52)

－ 24 －

- 25 -

NEP

60 53) 1998

1970NEP

2008 6

Hall A. & J. Midgley., Social policy for development, Sage publications, 2004, p.69.

－ 25 －

- 26 -

2008 28-29

Weiss, J.,‘Experiences with poverty targeting in Asia: an overview’,(Weiss J., ed., Poverty

targeting in Asia, Edward Elgar, 2005) p.13.

Hashim, S. M., Income inequality and poverty in Malaysia, Rowman & Littlefield

Publisher, Inc., 1998, p.7, pp.46-48

United Nations International Fund for Agricultural Development

Spicker, P. et. al. ed., Poverty: an international glossary,

Second Edition, Zed Books Ltd, 2006, p.171.

Jonathan, R., Southeast Asia, the human landscape of modernization and development,

second edition, Routledge,2003, p.91 93

Fields, G.S.& S. Soares, ‘The microeconomics of changing income distribution in

Malaysia’,( Bourguignon F., et al eds., The microeconomics of income distribution dynamics

in East Asia and Latin America, The World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2005),

pp.271-273.

New Sabah Times2008 3 7

10 UNDP Country Team, Malaysia ,Malaysia: Achieving the millennium development

goals,2005.

11 Chin, P.T.C., ’The Spatial surface of Poverty in Peninsular Malaysia’, Journal of Tropical

Geography,10-1,1989,pp.55-73

12 P.K.Voon 2008 9 17

13 Lim, H. F., Poverty & Household economics strategies in Malaysian New Villages, Institute

of Advanced Studies, University of Malaya, Pelanduk Publications,1994, p.154.

14 Gugler, J.,ed., World cities beyond the west: globalization, development and inequality,

Cambridge University Press, 2004, .89,273

15 Laquian, A., ’Who are the poor, and how are they served in Asian cities?’, ( Laquian, A., et

al eds, The inclusive city: infrastructure and public service for the urban poor in Asia,

Woodrow Wilson Center Press,2007), p.14.

16)Nesiah, D., Discrimination with reason?: the policy of reservations in the United States,

India and Malaysia, Oxford University Press,1999,p.233.

17)Yusoff, M.B. et al, ’Globalization, economic development, and equity: the case of Malaysia’,

Paper presented at OECD, Poverty and income inequality in developing countries: a policy

dialogue on the effects of globalization,30 November – 1 December 2000, Paris,p.50.

18 5

19 17

20)Cordillera Peoples Alliance and PACOS Trust, Indigenous peoples and local government:

experiences from Malaysia and the Philippines, IWGIA, document No.13, 2005,

p.20,49,57-58

21 Norizan, M.N., ’Ecotourism Development in Cameron Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia:

Participation and impact on the Orang Asli’, Paper presented at International Symposium

on The Socially Deprived and Self-Reliance through Tourism, 1-2, November, 2008, ed. by

－ 26 －

- 27 -

Workshop on Culture of Poverty and Tourism, Ritsumeikan,2008.

22) Malaysia, Government of, The Third Outline Perspective Plan, 2001, p.55, 87.

23)Mohamed, M.Z.B., ’The role of local government in urban poverty alleviation: a case study of

the Kuala Lumpur city hall, Malaysia’, (Nickum, J.E. &K. Oya, ed., New regional

development paradigms, Vol.4, Environmental Management, Poverty reduction, and

Sustainable Regional Development, Greenwood Press,2001),p.147

24) Bunnell, T., ’Out of place in the global cityscape: moral geographies of squatting in Kuala

Lumpur ’, (Wong, T.C. et al eds., Challenging sustainability: urban development and change

in Southeast Asia, Marshall Cavendish International:Singapore, 2006), p.327.

25) Kuala Lumpur City Hall, Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020, Secsion.6-5, 12-2, 2004.

26)

2006 336

339

Common Practice 3

1 48 60 3LDK 124

2 5000

2 250 400

3 1000

27)Wong, S.C., Jomo, K.S. & K.F. Chin, Malaysian "Bail outs"?: capital controls, restructuring

and recovery, Singapore University Press, 2005, p.234,240

28)Verma, V., Malaysia: state and civil society in transition, Lynne Rienner Publishers,

Inc.,2002,p.82.

29)Abdullah, F.H., ’Affirmative Action policy in Malaysia: To restructure society, to eradicate

poverty’, Ethnic Studies Report,Vol.15, No.2, 1999, pp.189-221.

30)Jomo K.S., Malaysian Industrial Policy, National University of Singapore Press ,2007,

Preface,p.104.

31) 2005

WWW.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/05j008.pdf 2007 8 10

32) 1992 45

33 2001

34) 1992 47-53

35) Vincent ,J.R. & M.A. Rozali, Managing Natural Wealth: Environment and development in

Malaysia, Resource for the Future, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2005,p.152.

36)

2005 183 184

37) Lee, B.T. & T.S. Bahrin, Felda’s fifty years: Land pioneers to investors, FELDA, 2006, p.92.

38) Ishida, A. & Azizan, A., ’Poverty eradication and income distribution in Malaysia’, Journal

of Contemporary Asia 28-3, 1998, pp.327-345.

39) 2008 8 25

40) Leong, H.K., ’Malaysia’s civil service reform: Mahathir ’s legacies and Abdullah’s

－ 27 －

- 28 -

challenges’, (Hock, S.S. & K. Kesavapany, eds., Malaysia: recent trends and challenges,

Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2007) p.198.

41) Hassan, A.A.G., Growth, structural change and regional inequality in Malaysia,

Ashgate,2004,p.159.

42) 41 156

43) UNCRD :United nations center for regional development, Urban development strategies in

the context of regional development, 1974, p.57.

44) Nor, A.R.M., Transport for the under-serves in Malaysia, Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia, 2004, p.76.

45) 22

46) Rahman, A.E., State-led modernization and the new middle class in Malaysia, Palgrave

Macmillan, New York, 2002, p.30.

47) Shiraishi, T., ’The third wave: Southeast Asia and middle-class formation in the making of

a region’, (Katzenstein, P.J.& T. Shiraishi, eds., Beyond Japan: The dynamics of East Asian

regionalism, Cornell University Press, 2006), p256.

48) Yuen, B., et al., Malaysia, (Brian, R.& T. Kanaley eds., Urbanization and sustainability in

Asia: case studies of good practice, Asian Development Bank, 2006), pp.233-234.

49) Henderson, J. et al., ’Economic governance and poverty reduction in Malaysia’,

2002, p13 21 28 www.gapresearch.org/governance/MalaysiaReportMay2002.pdf

2008 12 24

50) Shamsul, A,B., ’The politics of poverty eradication: the implementation of development

projects in a Malaysian District’, Pacific Affairs, Vol.56, No.3, 1983, pp.455-476.

51) The Straits Times 2005 4 12

52)

2007 138

53) Beh, L.S., Malaysian Chinese capitalism: mapping the bargain of a development state,

(Voon, P. K., ed., Malaysian Chinese and Nation Building: before merdeka and fifty years

after. Vol.1, Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, 2007, p.230, 239.

－ 28 －

- 29 -

( )

The Underclass in Kuala Lumpur: Squatters, Orang Asli and Foreign Workers

FUJIMAKI Masami College of Letters, Ritsumeikan University

Key Words Underclass, Squatters, Orang Asli, Foreign Workers, Kuala Lumpur

Abstract

The problem of the “underclass” as the “new poor” has not yet been openly discussed in Malaysia. In the midst of globalization, Kuala Lumpur is becoming a “peripheral world city”. With the rapid growth of the Malaysian economy, the country’s ratio of the absolute poor has been steadily declining: 49.3% (1970) to 7.0% (1999). With the increase of the “new rich” as well as the “new urban middle-class”, general interest in the poverty issue is waning within the country. However, the problems of “poverty amidst prosperity” still remain unsolved. The Malaysian government’s poverty eradication efforts target the hard-core poor whose monthly income is less than RM230 (approx. 6,000 Japanese yen) in Peninsula Malaysia, RM272 in Sabah and RM317 in Sarawak. These poor are concentrated in the following groups: owners of small scale rubber farms, paddy farmers, shifting cultivators in Sabah, sago producers in Sarawak, fishermen, owners of small scale coconut farms, estate workers, the Orang Asli and the urban poor.

The urban poor in Kuala Lumpur are mainly squatters, or former squatters who have resettled in low-cost, high-rise flats or are temporarily living in public wooden row houses (rumah kongsi).

The author also includes the Orang Asli (the original people living in the Malay Peninsula) and foreign workers in his consideration. The former group consists of the Orang Asli who is from local mountain villages and has recently joined the urban labor market in the Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan Area. The latter group consists of a rapidly increasing number of migrant workers from Indonesia, Bangladesh and other Asian countries, as well as Indonesians with permanent resident status.

－ 29 －

- 30 -

1980

12 underclass

20 20

2000

KL

1970 49.3 2002 5.1Jamilah Ariffin

1993 1990 (new rich) (new urban middle class) KL Kahn 1993

the needy TV

KL

dual city divided city2003 2007

－ 30 －

- 31 -

KLthe hard-core poor

the poverty target groups 1

3

KL

Orang Asli

KL1990

1 ethnic minority

new village1 KL

5 Voon, P-K.

KLKL

1 4 7 1978 24 KL 25%80

90 9813 KL 7

2000 20032005 KL

KL9 10

2005 KL

－ 31 －

- 32 -

rumah kongsi 89

2001

original peopleSenoi Melayu Asli

Proto-Malay Negrito 3 182 2004 14 9723

8 972

54% 6 3900 43% 4851

3% 2

840

5 5734 37.2% 4 7945 32% 22 69% 1 4161

3 78.7 21950 JHEOA Jabatan

Hal Ehal Orang Asli=Department of Orang Asli Affairs

JHEOA

JHEOA

－ 32 －

- 33 -

1990

2006

230 6NST: Aug.11, 2000: Good intentions

alone just not enough in all-out war on poverty 2001 NST:April 14, 2001: Orang Asli homes ready in October

460 81 23046%

1970 49.3 1987

6.1 2002 5.1

the first people but the last people

2006 KLTemuan 1 193

Mahmeri 2839 11 121980

KL

19902003 5

120 12 [Ministry of Finance Malaysia 2003:.67] 60

25Star: 18

January 2004 170 KL

－ 33 －

- 34 -

6

13 2000; 2003 ;2007

kongsi house14 15

2000; Fujimaki 2003

MM: 15 March 1996KL

MM: 9 February 1994LRT

MM: 29; 30 July 1998KL

16

KL

17TV

Star: 25 January 2004

KL

－ 34 －

- 35 -

2000

1980

1998 113 176

1990

3

2000 91 120

12 2000

19 42

KL

2001

60-93

KL

5-2 2003 79-93

593 2006 69-91

20

19 2007 1-19

93 2009 1-26

Azm Zehadul Karim et al.: Foreign Workers in Malaysia: Issues and Implications, Utusan

Publications and Distributions, 1999.

Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur: Laporan Kajian Pengawalan dan Penempatan Semula

Setinggan; Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, 1999.

Fujimaki, M.: Squatter Settlements by Foreign Workers in The Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan

Area- A Preliminary Consideration-, in Umehara, H. ed., Agrarian Transformation and

Areal Differentiation in Globalizing Southeast Asia: Proceedings of RU-CAAS Symposium

held at Rikkyo University on November 1-2, 2002, 2003, 241-265.

Kahn, J.S.: Growth, Economic Transformation, Culture and the Middle Classes in Malaysia, In Robinson,

R. & Goodman, D.S.G. (ed.), The New Rich in Asia: Mobile Phones, McDonald’s and Middle-class

Revolution, Routledge, 1993, 49-75.

Jamilah Ariffin ed.: Poverty amidst Plenty; Research Findings and the Gender in Malaysia, Pelanduk

Publications, 1993.

Ministry of Finance Malaysia: Economic Report 2003/2004, 2003.

NST New Strait Times Star The Star

－ 35 －

- 36 -

1 KLCC

2007 9 10

2

2008 8 28

3

New Strait Times 2003 10 11

4

2003 12 24

－ 36 －

- 37 -

fujimaki,m. 12

Lower Class

the Marginalized/ Under Class

Upper Class

Middle

Class

Foreign Workers

The Hard-core Poor of Malays, Chinese, Indians

Ethnic Minorities

Malaysian Hard-Core Poor

1

1

1976 29,308 175,360 106

1978 40,954 243,154 183

1980 36,502 233,109 186

1982 34,600 220,055 204

1992 37,804 225,689 255

1998 25,327 134,345 197

Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur: Laporan Kajian Pengawalan dan

Penempatan Semula Setinggan: Peringkat National Bahagian 1

Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, 1999, h.73.

－ 37 －

- 38 -

5

2003 8 11

8

2004 8 31

9

2003 8 29

6

2004 8 31

7

2004 8 31

10

New Strait Times 2004 1 15

－ 38 －

- 39 -

Negrito

Senoi

Melayu Asli

Kensin, Kintak, Lanoh, Jahai, Mendriq, Bateq

OrangAsli

Semai, Temiar, Semoq, Che Wong, Jahut,Mah Meri

Temuan, Semelai, Jakun,Kanaq, Kuala, Seletar

pop. 49,440 (1993)

pop. 80,972 (2004)

pop. 2,972 (1993)

pop. 4,851 (2004)

pop. 40,170 (1993)

pop. 63,900 (2004)

pop. 92,529(1993)

pop. 149,723

(2004)

2

JHEOA

2 2004

State Senoi Negrito Melayu Asli Total

Kelantan 8,820 1,098 0 9,918

Terengganu 653 28 0 681

Pahang 22,586 1,360 31,788 55,734

Kedah 0 232 0 232

Perak 45,092 2,133 720 47,945

Selangor 3,758 0 10,403 14,161

N.Sembilan 37 0 8,211 8,248

Melaka 23 0 1,385 1,408

Johor 3 0 11,393 11,396

Total 80,972 4,851 63,900 149,723

JHEOA

－ 39 －

- 40 -

16

Perlis

Kedah

Pinang

Perak

Selangor

Terengganu

Kelantan

Pahang

Federal Territory,Kuala Lumpur

Johore

NegriSembilan

Malacca

3 1991

1 100

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia Profil Orang Asli di Semenanjung Malaysia: Siri monograf Banci

Penduduk No.3, 1997 (Deapartment of Statistics, Malaysia , Profile of the Orang Asli in Peninsular

Malaysia: Population Census Monograph Series No.3,1997

11

Kg.Dua Belas 2003 11 14

12

Kg.Judah 2003 8 17

－ 40 －

- 41 -

17

2004 1 22

13

2003 11 24

14

2008 8 28

16

(New Strait Times 2004 8 16 )

15

2004 1 22

－ 41 －

- 42 -

- 43 -

The Tradition and Changes at the Chinatown in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

YAMASHITA Kiyomi University of Tsukuba

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to consider the traditional features and the latest changes at the Chinatown in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

As the result, the following things were clarified. Various Chinese facilities, such as Chinese temples, associations, Chinese school, Chinese bookstores, and so on have still been maintained at the Chinatown today.

The Chinese gates and the arcade were newly constructed by the beautification construction of the Chinatown in 2004. This project made a good progress for the sightseeing spots.

However, Malays and foreign workers coming into the Chinatown have increased, and multiracialization is progressing at the Chinatown, in Kuala Lumpur.

Key words: Chinatown, Chinese, shophouse, Chinese Gate, Kuala Lumpur

2006 2008

－ 43 －

- 44 -

185787

1867 73

Yap Ah Loy 18371885 3

1854 171868 1885 3

5 1889 1901 Yap Kwan SengLoke Yew

1 1986

1886

2

4

19067

－ 44 －

- 45 -

3

4 15

1980

1 1986 17 1

2008

19731986

pasar malam

－ 45 －

- 46 -

1990

1970

6

－ 46 －

- 47 -

RM1,500 2003 3 2004 7 7

8 9

Jalan Petalin Petaling Street

1990

DVD 10

11

－ 47 －

- 48 -

12

2004

1997

2005

2006

2002 213-212 2002 777

1970 31.4

28.7 26.2 5.2 5.1

2000 22-25

987 97-98

4 98-100

3 103

103-105

2003 5 1

2003 5 25

3 103

－ 48 －

- 49 -

1

1986

Fig. 1 Map of the Chinatown

in Kuala Lumpur, 1986

96

2

Fig. 2 The Chinese temple of Guandi

－ 49 －

- 50 -

3

Fig. 3 Confucian

Secondary School,

Kuala Lumpur

4

Fig. 4 The shophouses

6

Fig.6 The Tang City Food Court

5

Fig. 5 The five-foot-way(go-kaki)

－ 50 －

- 51 -

7

2004 7

30

Fig. 7 A Chinese newspaper article

About the completion of the

Chinatown beautification

8

Fig.8 The south gate of the Chinatown

9

Fig. 9 The north gate of the

Chinatown

－ 51 －

- 52 -

10

Fig. 10 Sale of imitation bland-name watches

11

Fig. 11 The guide map of the Chinatown

12

Fig. 12 Multi-ethnical community of the

Chinatown

－ 52 －

- 53 -

The Chinese New Villages in Malaysia:

Impact of Demographic Changes and Response Strategies

VOON Phin KeongDirector, Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies

Kuala Lumpur (e-mail: pkvoon@gmail.com)

Introduction

Peninsular Malaysia (formerly the Federation of Malaya) has more than 400 “New Villages” (NVs). They are unique settlements that were deliberately created as a countermeasure to an “incident” of history rather than through the spontaneous process of pioneering by the village inhabitants themselves. Hence, unlike other settlements, NVs are special by virtue of their origins, physical layout and their assumed identity as Chinese settlements.

The end of World War Two in Malaya ushered in a period of intense political struggle that locked the forces of colonialism and anti-colonialism in a deadly contest. The anti-colonial forces were the remnants of the resistance guerillas of the Japanese Occupation period of 1941-45. Many of them were, or presumed to be, communists. Many colonial and occupied territories throughout the world were then swept by the fury of nationalist assertion to free themselves from subjugation, and the contest in Malaya was in effect part of the regional struggle for independence (see Short, 1975). One of the lasting outcomes of this confrontation was the creation of the NVs which now stand as a permanent legacy to this bitter episode of the nation’s past.

The special origins of the NVs are attributed to a key strategy of the British colonial administration to re-assert political control over Malaya. One of the core military actions adopted was aimed at isolating the scattered and often armed anti-colonial units. Hence a countrywide move was set in motion to “resettle” widely dispersed inhabitants in the rural areas. The targeted population was primarily the Chinese many of whom were identified in an official report as “squatters” who occupied state and private land (Newboult et al., 1949). The resettlement programme was “the gathering together under administration and protection of families who are, or may be, subject to bandit influence” (Webber, 1951: 155). The word “bandit” was the official description for anti-colonial bands against whom the British administrators were waging an armed conflict to win the “hearts and minds” of the people. Four basic aims were identified for the resettlement programme. These were to insulate the “Communist gunmen” from their main source of supply and to protect the squatters from coercion; to establish a degree of security that would give people the confidence to supply information about the enemies; to break up the cells and organizations of the

－ 53 －

- 54 -

enemies, and to force them to attack security forces on the latter ’s ground (Stead, 1955: 647). In a hasty military operation, the colonial government succeeded in relocating half a million rural inhabitants into more than 400 compact villages between 1949 and 1954 (see Dobby, 1952/53 and 1953; King, 1954; Markandan, 1954; Corry, 1955; Stead, 1955; Hamzah, 1962; and Sandhu, 1964a and 1964b; Nyce, 1973). [1] As the NVs were deliberately “planned” to meet military contingencies, they were compact and crowded with supposedly “temporary” wooden houses laid out in a haphazard manner, enjoyed few amenities, had little land, and supported by a narrow economic base. Setting aside the political and military dimensions of the NVs, the act of relocating almost the entire rural Chinese community into new settlements was itself a massive operation of great significance. Had it not been the special historical circumstances that provided the excuse for the exercise of coercion, resettlement would not have been possible without causing intense social and political resentment or unrest. The majority of the villages were sited at the outskirts of state or district capitals and other towns for easy access and control. This strategic location would protect the NVs against subversive infiltration or attack. From a socio-economic perspective, the unprecedented resettlement was a social “revolution” that transformed widely scattered rural communities into semi-urban ones. It also instantly transformed illegal “squatters” into house owners holding legal leasehold titles to the land and enjoying access to water and electric supplies, or even to a village school. The semi-urban location also brought the Chinese into close contact with modern development through the urban economy.

Like other communities in present-day Malaysia, the NV community has experienced drastic demographic, social, and economic changes during the past fifty years. This paper focuses on specific issues relating to demographic changes. Two major aspects will be addressed. The first deals with specific changes and their resultant impacts from different perspectives. The second concerns possible strategies as a response to these changes.

Basic Characteristics of New Villages

Various estimates of the number and population of NVs have been made. They vary in number from 439 to 600 and in population from 458,000 to 600,000 (Sandhu, 1973: lxiv). An early official report revealed that when resettlement was completed by 1954, an estimated 543,555 people had been resettled in 451 NVs. Several of these NVs and a portion of the population were Malays. By and large, the population would represent 29 per cent of the total Chinese community in the Federation of Malaya in 1947 (Corry, 1954: Appendix A). The federal Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in a compilation in 2002, shows a list of 452 NVs under its charge ( /Sin Chew Daily, 4 March 2002).

－ 54 －

- 55 -

Expectedly, the distribution of NVs reflected that of the Chinese in each state (Table 1). According to the 1947 census, three-quarters of the Chinese lived in the states of Perak, Selangor, Johor and Penang. Most of the NVs are therefore found in these west coast states (Fig. 1). Perak, formerly the world’s tin-mining centre and a major producer of rubber, has the largest number of NVs in the country. Next is Johor, another agricultural state that is most accessible to the urban centre of Singapore. Selangor and the federal capital city of Kuala Lumpur also featured prominently, notably in the number of large NVs. Perak alone accounted for a third (36.4%) of the initial population in NVs, Johor had a fifth (21.6%) and Selangor slightly less (17.9%). In all, they accounted for three-quarters of the entire NV population. In the highly urbanized state of Penang (including Province Wellesley, now known as Seberang Perai), the small rural sector was easily re-grouped into a small number of NVs.

The largest NVs are found in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. At the time of inception, more than half the NVs in Perak, Johor and Selangor had more than 1,000 inhabitants each (Fig.2). The largest, situated just north of Kuala Lumpur, had 13,000 people, and 11 others had more than 5,000 (Table 2).

Although NVs are identified with the Chinese community, a considerable number was dominated by Malay residents. In Kelantan, all except one were Malay New Villages. Official statistics compiled in 1986 confirmed this generally overlooked aspect of ethnicity. Of the 333 NVs for which statistics are available, 26 were exclusively Malay NVs and in 22 others the Chinese made up less than half the inhabitants. Contrary to common perception, only 53 out of 333 NVs, or 16 per cent of the total, were completely “Chinese”. A fair description of NVs in 1985 was that the Chinese comprised more than half the population of NVs in the majority of cases (285 or 85.6 per cent), and in 257 NVs (77 per cent), the inhabitants were overwhelmingly Chinese (Table 3).

NVs are distinguished by their physical compactness and the almost complete dominance of residential use. At the time of establishment the number of house lots in the states other than Perak was estimated at 57,700. Based on the estimated NV population of 345,446 persons in these states, the average number of occupants per lot was 6 persons (Corry, 1955: 24 and Appendix A). More than fifty years later, the latest official estimate for Perak is 47,000 “lot-owners” in 134 NVs, or an average of 350 such owners per village (The Star, 1 January 2009).

The typical layout of a NV is shown in Figure 3. The shortage of land has meant that each village is built with a maximum number of houses within its boundary. Unoccupied land was quickly taken up by subsequent arrivals to the villages. Besides houses, buildings for other purposes are conspicuously lacking. Most NVs could only boast a community hall. The better served villages would have a primary school and limited recreational facilities. Hence the hallmark of the average NV is the high population density and unfavourable man-land ratio.

－ 55 －

- 56 -

Demographic Changes

From their inception, NVs were faced with problems of various kinds. Following the development in the Malaysian economy during the past half a century and the emergence of new social trends in the country, the NVs have consequently experienced various changes of which the most conspicuous are demographic. These changes are caused by trends within the villages and those associated with the restructuring of the economy. Two forms of demographic change that are most obvious are those concerning the population size of NVs and its movements.

Changing Population Size Demographic changes in NVs are caused by declining birth rates and out-migration. Both impact directly on the population size of NVs. The change in population numbers shows two different trends. The first is rapid increase in population in the early stage (1950-70s) followed by subsequent decelerating growth and even stagnation. The other is rapid initial growth followed by a decline in absolute terms.

During the initial period of resettlement, the population structure of NVs was characteristically youthful, with children in the 0-14 age group comprising four out of every ten persons. High birth rates and large family size were the norm then. Up to 1970, the NVs had increased their total population by 77 per cent, reaching 98 per cent in Selangor/Kuala Lumpur. After 1970, improved education among NV residents and the growing influence of the urban and industrial economy were beginning to bring about a discernible slowing down in the birth rates. The average annual growth rate of NVs was 4.2 per cent between 1954 and 1970, 3.2 per cent between 1970 and 1985, but only 0.2 per cent between 1985 and the early 1990s ( /Lim Hin Hui and Soong Wan Ying, 1996). In the period up to 1995, out of 346 NVs for which statistics are available, 261 experienced an increase in their population whereas 85 others suffered an absolute decline (Table 4).

Population Movements Changes in population numbers are also the result of population movements. Many NVs and small towns are the primary sources of Chinese out-migration to the cities. At the same time, some NVs situated on the periphery of these cities have also acted as destinations for some migrants.

After the lifting of the Emergency in 1960, some families decided to move back to their original places of residence. More important was out-migration from NVs for purposes of employment or education. This movement began as early as the 1960s (see Khoo and Voon, 1975). From the 1970s onwards, the outflow gathered momentum as the young generation looked to the towns in search of personal advancement and to

－ 56 －

- 57 -

advantage of opportunities arising from the processes of urbanization and industrialization as well as the expansion of higher education. The 1970s marked the gradual shift from agriculture and mining towards industrial development. Rural-urban migration became a social process the effect of which was to reshuffle the distribution of population and hence labour resources on a regional basis. Caught in this process of flux were large numbers of Malay and Chinese youths living in areas that were lagging behind the emerging urban-industrial centres in the more prosperous parts of the country.

During the 1980s and 1990s, economic restructuring accelerated with increasing inflows of foreign direct investments. Following the rise of the Japanese economy in the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent emergence of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, collectively known as the Asian Newly Industrializing Economies, Malaysia and other Southeast Asian countries followed suit with strategies to stimulate development along the pattern of these successful economies. In what has often been described as the “flying geese” pattern of East Asian development, the Malaysian economy has since been radically transformed by the entry of major multinational corporations as they reacted positively to the rise of East Asia and the inexorable march of globalization. Internally, the transformation of the Malaysian economic landscape was accompanied by a population re-distribution leading to increased demographic regionalization centred around the federal capital. Basically, population movements are a reflection of rational and personal decisions made by large numbers of persons in pursuit of personal interests. These movements help to transfer excess labour resources in economically lagging areas to more prosperous ones. NVs themselves play a passive role in this process. This is so because agricultural-based occupations that have sustained the livelihood of the first-generation inhabitants of NVs no longer appeal to the young. The marginalization of the agricultural sector becomes more acute as alternative activities fail to develop. As the village economy is “hollowed” out, dependence on remittances from village migrants increases. The outflow of the younger sections of the population is rapidly undermining the viability of NVs both economically and socially. As industries and commerce congregate in the major towns and as few among those who receive their education in the cities return to their villages, out-migration will continue unabated. This age structure of many NVs clearly reflects the demographic effects of this process.

Impact of Demographic Changes

The impacts of demographic changes that are taking place in NVs have serious consequences that spread well beyond the confines of the villages. Among these are four that are of immediate concern.

－ 57 －

- 58 -

Population Decline Declining birth rates and the out-migration among the young have led to a trend of depopulation in some NVs. Available statistics show that 56 NVs suffered population decline from the 1970s onwards, and 29 more suffered the same fate from the 1980s (Table 5).

This declining trend has continued in recent years, and statistics confirm the belief that the desertion of NVs has intensified. During the inter-censal period of 1991-2000, available statistics for 82 NVs in Perak show that their combined population fell from 97,214 to 75,272 or 22.6 per cent (DOS, 2008). A distinctive feature of this exodus is that it is not confined to specific villages or areas but affects practically all NVs in the state. It is fair to assume that this trend is generally true for all NVs except those located outside Kuala Lumpur or in south Johor to which the exodus from economically lagging states is directed.

The population of NVs increased threefold from 573,000 to 1.68 million between 1954 and 1995. Since then, it had declined considerably, reaching 1.26 million in 2002 or a 25 per cent drop in the seven-year period (Lim and Fong, 2005: 55). Assuming that this was due entirely to out-migration, it would mean that, on average, 60,000 people moved out of NVs each year between 1995 and 2002. In 2001 alone, of the 723,989 internal migrants in the country, 116,562 or 16 per cent were Chinese, of whom 83 per cent moved to urban destinations (DOS, 2002: 31 and 33). A comparison between this total number and the annual decline in the population of NVs may indicate that half the in-migrants were probably from the villages. If this trend were to persist in the foreseeable future, there would be long-term negative implications on the future prospects of NVs.

One of these implications is the demand and supply of enrolment capacities in Chinese primary schools. Primary education in Malaysia is available in three language medium, namely, Malay (national language), Chinese and Tamil. The first is identified as “national” schools and the other two as “national-type” schools. In general, despite easy access to national schools, nine out of ten Chinese families opt to enroll their children in the local Chinese schools.

However, out-migration and reduced births have led to a secular decline in the enrolment of many village primary schools. Available data for January 2003 show that 124 or 12.7 per cent of Chinese primary schools in Peninsular Malaysia had fewer than 50 pupils each, and another 126 schools had fewer than 100 pupils (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2003). The excess of enrolment capacity is common in areas of depopulation and most acute in Perak, Johor, Kedah, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan. The first three states accounted for 69 per cent of the smallest schools. All except parts of Johor are economically falling behind Selangor/Kuala Lumpur and Penang. The “under-sized” schools are non-existent in Kuala Lumpur and Kelantan (where there

－ 58 －

- 59 -

are few Chinese primary schools) and are relatively uncommon in Selangor and Penang. The existence of under-utilized schools is a “luxury” that the Chinese community can hardly afford. This wastage of community resources will likely worsen and so will the strain on the resources of existing schools in densely-settled urban centres (see Voon, 2007).

The exodus of rural youths and the regional concentration in urban centres have increased the pressure on existing urban schools to accommodate an increasing cohort of school-going children. Chinese education is a political issue and approval for new Chinese primary schools is rarely granted. In this respect, the redistribution of population in favour of urbanized areas and the transfer of demand for enrolment in schools from villages and small towns to these areas have serious social consequences for the Chinese community and nation.

The pressure on school enrolment is the result of the spatial disequilibrium between supply and demand. There are two dimensions to this issue. The first is that the existing 1,288 Chinese primary schools, with an average enrolment of 466 pupils, are technically sufficient to accommodate the present number of 600,000 pupils. The second is that the cause of the disequilibrium between supply and demand for admission is the failure of official planning to foresee problems arising from population redistribution. While school enrolment capacity is fixed, the demand is governed by spatial shifts in population. Unfortunately, no effective mechanism by which to correct the imbalance between supply and demand has been worked out.

The extent of the disequilibrium is reflected in the existence of “midget” and “giant” schools. In 2003, while 250 (25%) of 979 Chinese primary schools in Peninsular Malaysia had fewer than 100 pupils each, there were 175 (18%) with more than 1,000 pupils. Among the super-large schools, 48 had more than 2,000 pupils each. These schools were found in Selangor, Johor, Kuala Lumpur and Perak, and it is in these states, together with Penang, that the largest urban centres in the country are found. Indeed, a school in Skudai, on the outskirt of Johor Bahru city, and another in Kepong, just north of Kuala Lumpur, had to accommodate close to 5,000 pupils each. In Kuala Lumpur, with only 40 Chinese primary schools to meet the needs of a Chinese community of 560,000 persons, 29 (73%) of the schools had enrolments of more than 1,000 pupils and ten (25%) of these schools had more than 2,000 pupils. In Selangor 42 out of 103 schools (41%) were in the 1,000-pupil enrolment category and 19 of these were in the super-large class (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2003). It is this intense pressure on the existing enrolment capacity of urban schools that is the serious concern of the Chinese community over the access to education in the local Chinese primary school. This concern increases with the appearance of more and more urban neighbourhoods with young families and in-migrants.

－ 59 －

- 60 -

Declining Family Size The NV population in the 1950s was young and family size was large. Children (0-14 years) made up more than 40 per cent of the population, as in Rasah and Titi NVs in Negeri Sembilan, as was also the case for the Chinese population of the Federation of Malaya in general (Hamzah, 1961; Siaw, 1983; Fell, 1960). The average size of Chinese families in the 1950s tended to be larger than that of the national average. In 1957, the average Chinese family had 5.5 persons compared with 4.7 persons for the entire Federation; 56 per cent of Chinese families had five or more persons, and a third had at least seven persons (Fell, 1960). Among the NVs, various studies in the 1970s showed that the average Chinese family was 50 per cent larger than the national average. The generally larger Chinese family had remained common up to 1980 (DOS, 1983). Table 6 shows that NV families had an average of 6-8 persons in the late 1960s and 1970s. These figures would confirm that the Chinese still held dear to the traditional idea of the large and extended family, maintained by generally high birth rates. In the 1950s and 1960s when family planning was unheard of or still in its infancy, it was not unusual for an average couple to have ten or more children. At the time of establishment until the 1970s, the labour-intensive rubber smallholding industry and the narrow economic base of the towns had kept internal population movements to a minimal. Since then, declining birth rates and out-migration had given rise to smaller Chinese families. In 2000, the average Chinese family size was between 4.2 and 5.1 persons (DOS, 2001). This trend is equally obvious in some NVs. The Repas NV in Bentong averaged only 4.1 persons per family in 2001, or smaller than the national average of 4.6 persons (DOS, 2005: 123).

Distortion of Family Structure Up to the 1970s, the traditional extended families were common in the NVs. Families with three or four generations living under the same roof were the norm. The family members normally consisted of the parents, married sons and their spouses and children, including on occasions some relatives. This may also be due to poverty and the shortage of land for married children to establish their own households. Smaller nuclear families comprising married couples and their unmarried children were very much less common then. At the time of independence in 1957, 12 per cent of Chinese households in the Federation of Malaya were single-member families, 32 per cent had two to four members, 48 per cent five to ten members, and 8 per cent had 11 or more members (Fell, 1960). Field investigations in Tangkak NV in Johor and the Simpang Empat squatter settlement near Ipoh, Perak, in 1977 showed that single-member families were rare and 2-4 member families were relatively fewer than the national average. In contrast, families with five to ten members or more were far more common, and made up 56 per

－ 60 －

- 61 -

cent of the total (Table 7). There is insufficient information to allow a proper assessment of the current

situation. One particular source concerning Repas NV in 2001 points to drastic changes in the structure of its families. Among the 163 households in the village, 22 or 13.5 per cent consisted of single-member families, almost half had two to four members and only 13 (or 14 per cent) had seven or more persons.

Out-migration of the young was the major cause of the diminishing size and changing structure of NV families. The direct result of the desertion of NVs by the young is the distortion of the structure of families as they leave their children or elderly members behind.

From the 2001 statistics for Repas NV, it is clear that many families have acquired an unusual structure. For instance, the 22 single-member households were split equally between male and female members. All the females were 56 years of age or older, and three of the males were in the same category. Furthermore, there were 25 households in which there were two elderly persons or a grandparent living with a grandchild. Among the 21 households with two members each, 19 had at least one elderly person aged 56 years and above. Of these 19 households, 13 consisted of elderly couples, two comprised a grandmother living with a grandchild. Among three-member households, three elderly couples were looking after their grandchildren. There were also two households in which grandparents lived with two or three children (Table 8).

Changing Age Structure Falling birth rates and out-migration have also accelerated the ageing process. The Chinese community is ageing faster than other communities and the NV community is even more so. The changing shape of age pyramids of the Chinese from the 1950s onwards paint a picture of a society moving from youthful to middle age. In this process, many NVs have reached the stage of “old age”.

Figure 4 shows the age pyramid of the Chinese in the Federation of Malaya in 1957. The structure was that of a young population, in which children aged 0-14 years comprise a high proportion of 44 per cent, whereas only 3.3 per cent were aged 65 years and above. In contrast, those in the working age groups (15-59 years) formed more than half the population. In the same year, half the population of Titi NV were children and 4.5 per cent were 65 and above (Fig. 5). Figures 6 to 9 portray the ageing process of the NV population in the 1990s. Although the working of this process is basically identical, there are certain differences between NVs in rural and urban areas. From the examples of Titi, Sungai Ruan, Tangkak and Sungai Way (also known as Seri Setia) NVs, it is possible to detect three patterns of ageing. The first pattern is that of the urban village of Sungai Way that is situated outside Kuala Lumpur (Figures 6a and b). The quickened pace of ageing of its

－ 61 －

- 62 -

population in the 1990s has produced a “top heavy” age-sex pyramid. The characteristically large proportion of those in the 20-29 age cohort and the “pot belly” shape are the result of the in-migration of young people from rural NVs and small towns. During the 1990s too, the proportion of children declined from 20 to 15.6 per cent, while that of the elderly aged 60 and above rose from 9 to 15 per cent. The middle portion of the working population aged 15-59 years was as large as 70 per cent. The second pattern is represented by the semi-urban village of Tangkak (Figures 7a and b). The distinctive feature of the age-sex pyramid is the bell-like or “trumpet” shape caused by the gradual decline in the proportion of children. The working-age cohort is still substantial and remains at about 60 per cent of the total village population.

The third pattern is that of the rural Titi and Sungai Ruan NVs (Figures 8a and b, and Figures 9a and b). Outwardly, the shape of the age-sex pyramids is the mirror image of the urban NVs. The middle portion comprising the 20-29 age cohort is particularly inconspicuous, caused by an exodus to escape the unemployment trap of their villages. The reduction in the number of young people has thereby statistically inflated the proportion of children as well as the aged.

In NVs that are found outside smaller towns, such as Repas NV, the situation seems to be even more serious. In the context of the rapid loss of the economic appeal of agriculture that had supported the income and employment of many NVs, the relative decline in the number of children and young people is clearly evident. The corollary is therefore the increased weight of the aged in the entire population.

From the above examples, it is envisaged that NVs will experience different patterns of change in their age structure. The overall trend, however, is that ageing of the NV population will intensify, and one of the primary causes is the continued diminution of the share of young people in their population.

The stage of population ageing may be measured by an Index of Ageing. This Index is based on the ratio between the number of persons aged 60 and above for every 100 children. In Titi NV, this ratio was 13:100 in 1970 but rose 2.5 times to 45:100 in the year 2000 (Siaw, 1983: 159; DOS, 2003). For Sungai Way NV, the number of the aged doubled from 45 to 97 for every 100 children in the 1990s alone. In other words, this village had as many old people as there were children in 2000. If many NVs are becoming “old folks” or” retirees” settlements, the worsening of the Index of Ageing is likely to accelerate in the near future.

Weakening Social “Sustainability” The desertion of NVs by young people and the stagnation of birth rates have their negative social and economic impacts. The most serious and long-term impact is the “sustainability” of the NV communities in social and economic terms.

With a serious shortage of the young and vigorous section of population, NVs

－ 62 －

- 63 -

will invariably suffer for want of social life and continuity of dynamic leadership. At the same time, this weakness will undermine the ability of NVs to adapt and adjust to new ideas and advancements especially in modern communication. Most NVs have failed to restructure their economic base from a dependence on agriculture to manufacturing. More often than not, the change has seen a viable agricultural base going into stagnation and decline. The failure of NVs to develop an alternative economy brings to question their future prospects as viable settlements. That the young generation is giving up rubber tapping and other traditional occupations is almost unavoidable. The crucial issue is that no viable alternatives have been developed to replace what is being lost. Overall, without the support of an energetic and committed community of young people, participation in village social life will dissipate, personal networks will weaken, and community life will suffer. In the absence of continuity and renewal, the phenomenon of “hollowing out” of many NVs will become an unavoidable reality. As dependence of NVs and small towns on remittances sent by those who are no longer village residents increases, these NVs will become mere appendages to some distant urban centres.

Response Strategies to Demographic Changes

The NVs were created by the previous colonial administration but have now become the “step-child” of officialdom. After more than half a century of existence, and despite being the special responsibilities of a ministry at the federal level, they have received scant attention and often seen as the concern of the Chinese community rather than that of the nation. This has become the popular lament of the public and the press (see, for example, /Sin Chew Daily, 28 October 1985 and 4 March 2002; NST, 24 Sept. 1985 and 13 May 1986). They are indeed a component of national life with its specific features and problems. Whether it is from the perspective of their locations at the urban fringe or the nature of their existence, NVs occupy a half-way stage between the urban and rural. Some have become “urbanized” while others are semi-agricultural. Yet the majority are neither towns nor agricultural villages as they do not possess the complete infrastructure of the former nor the land and lifestyle of the latter. Inevitably, NVs are caught in a state of change. Whether it is the population, society or economy, change has been inevitable. How the government and the NV community itself respond to various changes has become an oft-debated issue. Hitherto the need to confront rapidly shifting scenarios has not been heeded in a way that may turn the NVs into modern settlements to cope with the demands of the twenty-first century. Sorely lacking are the committed efforts to seek solutions that are capable of transforming NVs into modern and viable settlements. Efforts towards this end will require strategies that have hitherto been overlooked.

－ 63 －

- 64 -

Research and Planning Being military hamlets, NVs were not designed as modern settlements that had the benefit of proper planning. The only “planning” involved was that of a nationwide operation to implement the resettlement project hastily. On the ground, “planning” was concerned with considerations of location, actual siting and layout, and the form of the village itself (see Hamzah, 1966). More often than not, it was a case of “too much hurry to rush people away from the Communists’ reach” and “too little planning on the sites to which they were taken”. The consequence was that “new slums developed” (Stead, 1955: 648).

Any attempt to formulate response strategies to the problems of NVs will have to begin with detailed investigations to understand the specific conditions and peculiarities of individual villages. NVs are different not just in their locations but more crucially in their social and economic characteristics and hence their problems. More basic data other than what is already known have to be assembled and analysed to give deeper insights into core issues and problems. It is only with adequate and updated data that meaningful policies and strategies can be drawn up for action.

One of the first steps in any investigation is to complete a typological study of all NVs. The purpose is to devise an objective classification of NVs according to a set of standard criteria. Based on the classification, NVs would be assessed in a more scientific and standardized manner and consequently as an aid in the search for effective policies and strategies. Among the basic statistics that are relevant to the typological study will include the following:

1: location of NVs and their spatial relations with urban areas, 2: demographic characteristics such as population change, age structure, family structure, population movements, 3: economic conditions such as occupations, agriculture, industries, services, and sources of income, 4: educational conditions such as educational levels, schools, or dropout rates, 5: conditions of land and land use, the environment and resources, 6: infrastructure such as amenities, recreational and cultural facilities, and 7: others such as social problems, attitudes towards change, among others.

Improving Economic Capabilities The economy of NVs at the time of formation was primarily agricultural and many villagers depended on their rubber holdings for a living, or worked as rubber tappers in estates or smallholdings. Some villagers produced vegetables for the urban markets, and others worked in tin mines, timber camps, or in fishing and stock rearing. In a few NVs especially outside Kuala Lumpur, the people found employment in the engineering and metal trades or as shopkeepers, hawkers, tailors or clerks. Some worked in

－ 64 －

- 65 -

small-scale industries making food and beverages and various simple manufactured items (see Corry, 1955; Clarkson, 1968; Nyce, 1973).

While out-migration from NVs enables the young to improve their economic prospects and to broaden their outlook, it also robs the villages of the talented and those in the prime of life. At the same time, the growing concentration of population in major urban areas leads to various problems as well as widen regional disparities. The question is, can out-migration from NVs and their negative impacts be sustained on the long-run? Granted that out-migration cannot be avoided, it is nevertheless necessary to reduce the outflow. But to retain able-bodied members, it is necessary to raise the economic, social and educational capabilities and opportunities of NVs and small towns. In the economic sphere, the rubber smallholding industry has long lost its appeal as an occupation as well as a major source of income. However, certain forms of agricultural production are still attractive and would yield attractive returns under modern modes of production and management. Investment in high-value items such as flowers, fruits, fish and livestock farming are possible avenues for viable professional careers for the young and enterprising. These activities have low demands on land but will need the support of sufficient capital, technologies, and management. In the areas of small-scale manufacturing or tourism, official strategies need to incorporate NVs into the government’s development blueprint. It is time to discard the traditional attitude of leaving the NVs alone or letting them grope the way out of their dilemma. It is also timely to entice outside interests such as business enterprises or other bodies to initiate and participate in the economic and community develop projects of NVs. The Japanese model of “one village one product” has been mentioned as a possible development strategy. Despite official attempts to emulate this idea, the outcome has left much to be desired. In the age of modern information technology (IT) in which physical space is no longer an obstacle in the performance of information-related activities, it is necessary to bring IT and Internet technologies to the NV youths. With sufficient training, they may not have to abandon their villages to work in the cities. Genuine efforts from the government, community or business sector are essential to encourage and motivate this linkage between IT and the NVs. With the advent of IT and the compression of space, out-migration will no longer be the only option for access to urban-based employment. Integration of this type will contribute significantly to reduce differences between well-endowed urban centres and deprived rural areas.

Strengthening Family ValuesOne of the means by which to entice the young to stay back in small towns and NVs is to “urbanize” these settlements and to raise their economic vigour and appeal. This is also a necessary approach in efforts to revitalize the NVs. The 20-50 age cohorts

－ 65 －

- 66 -

constitute the life and energy of a community and their participation in social life is indispensable to the healthy growth of a settlement. How to infuse more life into a community will depend on sound leadership and official support.

The family is the basic unit of organization of a community. Under the impact of economic development and globalization, the family is losing its traditional role and value, and family solidarity is losing its grip on the younger generation. Affected too are traditional culture and values towards the family and person-to-person relations. Yet in an ageing society, the care for the elderly is even more important than ever before. In short, the fewer young people abandon their families to seek opportunities elsewhere, the more complete their families, and the greater care the children and aged will receive. The NV communities are not only ageing but constitute concentrations of low income groups with little access to retirement benefits. Adding to these burdens is the lack of social facilities and community support. Hence the care for the elderly is entirely the private responsibilities of individual families. In this context, the practice of filial piety will have a decisive impact on the quality of life of or care received by the elderly. In preparing for the arrival of the advanced ageing society, the local Chinese organizations will have ample opportunities to re-invent themselves by engaging in meaningful community work and social support. The Chinese community has a fairly well-developed network of organizations numbering more than 7,000 throughout the country (see /Voon Phin Keong, 2005). They range from the local to nationwide organizations based on affiliations of dialects, clans, surnames, occupations, social or cultural affinities. Collectively they can exert an enormous influence to promote the idea of a caring society and to contribute to various ways by which the needs of elderly persons may be met through an organized network of community support.

Improving the Quality of Land UseFor some time after the creation of the NVs, they were considered as providing “the prototypes for a healthier and satisfying way of living” (Hamzah, 1966: 69). But after close to 60 years during which the physical layout of NVs has become more elaborate but remained basically unchanged, it is time to redefine the original rationale that had justified the forced resettlement of people into the NVs.

The problems of NVs are multi-dimensional and impinge on the spheres of social, economic, and political life as well as issues pertaining to landownership of house lots, the imbalance in the supply and demand for places in the village schools, and the increasing likelihood of social “decay” rather than vitality of the average village community.

The land use of a settlement is an important determinant of the quality of life of its people. The subjugation of the needs of the village inhabitants to those of a military

－ 66 －

- 67 -

contingency has condemned the NVs to a physical “mould” that has become “fossilized” in layout and pattern. Physically, NVs are packed with houses often arranged in disorder. At the time of resettlement, speed rather than physical planning and orderliness was the primary consideration. Consequently, the original layout has persisted until today, and signs of change for the better are nowhere evident. The most conspicuous feature of the typical NV is the presence of houses and the absence of vacant spaces. The entire village is a dismal depiction of densely-packed dwellings to the exclusion of other land uses. The community hall and primary Chinese school are often the only non-residential uses of the village land. Land that is devoted to cultural, commercial or recreational uses is practically non-existent. One may wonder if the current physical layout and land use of NVs would remain unchanged as in the past 60 years. In 1986, a research report mentioned the need for the redesign of the layout of NVs (Voon and Khoo, 1986). Occasional reports have publicized official intentions to revitalize NVs by various means such as upgrading existing buildings into multi-storey structures or turning the villages into “suburban areas or self-contained housing estates” (NST, 20 Sept. 1985 and 12 May 1986).

Provided that the rights of NV residents to their land and other private and community interests are fully protected, and with the mutual consent of the residents, there is a case to support efforts to upgrade and diversify NV land-use patterns by incorporating specific areas for residential, commercial and/or industrial, cultural, educational, recreational and leisure uses. These new land uses will be planned according to appropriate models that would provide for a systematic and efficient utilization of the land resources of NVs. The best manner by which this objective may be achieved would involve mutual consultation between NV residents, participating private or commercial interests and relevant official authorities. A 1985 official document reveals that in 302 NVs for which statistics are available, the combined land area amounted to 4,080 hectares (10,079 acres), or an average of 13.5 hectares per village (33 acres) (Kementerian Pembangunan Negeri dan Luar Bandar, 1986). The redesign of scarce land resources, hitherto locked up for the single purpose of dwelling, may be released for additional forms of productive and innovative uses. The current restricted use of available land is “wasteful” in that land is not fully utilized to meet urgent social and economic needs of the village community. Only by freeing the land to rebuild settlements that integrate cultural and material life into a systematic whole, and in which land is used with maximum efficiency and esthetics, will the NVs become modern settlements of high residential desirability. If NVs are able to escape the present trap of outdated land use, they may be transformed into modern settlements that satisfy the varied demands of society rather than serving the sole purpose of dwelling. Any change towards this end would certainly require a drastic shift in the attitude and lifestyle of village residents from landed properties to

－ 67 －

- 68 -

high-rise living. In this through such fundamental changes that NVs will evolve into attractive places for modern living, employment, and cultural fulfillment.

Conclusion

The resettlement of rural Chinese inhabitants into NVs was a central strategy in the British military master plan to beat off the determined efforts of anti-colonial forces in Malaya at the end of the Japanese Occupation. The NVs have fulfilled their military objective and have since continued to shelter the village community for more than 50 years. More so than the cities and small towns, the NVs have been seen to as a “bastion” of Chinese settlement. The NVs have served their role eminently in the colonial plan for political survival. Today, they are left more like a neglected step-child than as a testimony to the struggle for building a democratic way of life in the formative stage of nationhood. Many NVs are losing their social and economic vigour, and can only watch the twentieth-first century go by. While the NVs had indeed offered “a great social opportunity” for the inhabitants, it had been lamented that it was “a pity that better use is not being made of it” (Stead, 1955: 642). Unless innovative policies are adopted to reinvigorate the NV communities, it is almost certain that more will join the ranks of slumbering historical memorials to the original military strategy that they had served so successfully.

The problems of NVs are many and complex. Failure to overcome these problems would lead to the inevitable marginalization of hundred of NVs economically and culturally. The need to transform the NVs into modern settlements that are fully integrated into mainstream society looks increasingly like a strategy than an option. Only then will NVs develop into delightful townships with which residents would be proud to identify. The most logical approach to the modernization of the “outdated” settlement is to redevelop it into a modern one that can meet the needs of the age. By virtue of their location close to the towns or in readily accessible areas, the NVs indeed present a “great social opportunity” as had been envisaged by some at the time of their establishment. Rather than left to serve as “dormitories” and settlements of an ageing society, they possess the potentials, if fully integrated into the economy as an important component of the national development agenda, to mature into a dynamic player in national social and economic life. After more than half a century of neglect and the failure to make “better use” of the potentials of NVs, it will benefit the village community, government and other relevant parties if they recognize that these villages can be an active participant in national development beyond their silent role as a pawn in the colonial struggle for supremacy.

－ 68 －

- 69 -

Notes1) The New Villages also attracted the attention of German scholars such as K hne,

1969. 2) “Emergency” regulations were imposed by the government in its fight against the

“communist”. Among the restrictions were the imposition of daily curfew hours and the strict control on population movements into areas outside the villages.

References CHENG Lim Keak 1976. Mengkuang: A Study of a Chinese New Village in West Malaysia,

Singapore: Nanyang University Research Project Series No. 1.

CLARKSON, James D. 1968. The Cultural Ecology of a Chinese Village: Cameron Highlands,

Malaysia, Department of Geography Research Paper No. 114, Chicago: The University of

Chicago

CORRY, W.C.S. 1954. A General Survey of New Villages, Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers

(being a report to His Excellency Sir Donald MacGullivray). Also filed as B/C File: 487/55

(Malaysian National Archives).

Department of Statistics, Malaysia (DOS), 1983. Population and Housing Census of Malaysia:

General Report of the Population Census, Volume 1, Kuala Lumpur.

----- 2001. 2000 Population and Housing Census: Population Distribution by Local Authority

Areas and Mukims, Putrajaya.

----- 2002. Migration Survey Report, Malaysia, 2001, Putrajaya.

----- 2005. General Report of the Population and Housing Census, Putrajaya.

----- 2008. Demographic data on selected New Villages for 1991 and 2000. Putrajaya

(unpublished data).

DOBBY, E.H.G. 1952/53. Resettlement transforms Malaya: a case-history of relocating the

population of an Asian plural society, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1:

163-189.

----- 1953. Recent settlement changes in South Malaya, The Malayan Journal of Tropical

Geography, 1: 1-8.

FELL, H. 1960. 1957 Population Census of the Federation of Malaya: Report No. 14. Kuala

Lumpur: Department of Statistics.

HAMZAH Sendut 1961. Rasah - a resettlement village in Malaya. Asian Survey, 1 (9): 21-26.

----- 1962. The resettlement villages in Malaya, Geography, 47: 41-46.

----- 1966. Planning resettlement villages in Malaya, Planning Outlook, 1: 58-70 (New Series).

Kementerian Pembangunan Negeri dan Luar Bandar, Malaysia 1986. Maklumat Demografi

Kampung Baru Malaysia,1985. (Ministry of National and Rural Development, Malaysia.

Demographic Information on New Villages in Malaysia, 1985), Kuala Lumpur, unpublished

data.

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia 2003, Senarai Sekolah Rendah Seluruh Malaysia seperti

pada Januari 2003 Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyilidikan Dasar Pendidikan (Ministry of

－ 69 －

- 70 -

Education Malaysia, List of Primary Schools throughout Malaysia as in January 2003.

Division of Plannng and Basic Education Research (mimeo)).

Kementerian Perpaduan Negara, Malaysia (Ministry of National Unity, Malaysia) 1973. A

Socio-economic Survey of New Villages in Perak and Melaka. Kuala Lumpur.

KHOO, S.H. and VOON, P.K. 1975. Rural-urban migration in peninsular Malaysia: a case study

of Sungai Ruan new village, Pahang. Ekistics 39 (235): 405-408.

KING, John Jerry 1954. Malaya’s resettlement problem, Far Eastern Survey, 23: 33-40.

K HNE, Dietrich 1969. New villages, new towns und rural development in Malaya, Dir Erde,

100 (2-4): 348-358.

LEES, F. 1964. Chinese settlement in the Kulai Sub-District of Johore, Malaysia. In

Geographers and the Tropics: Liverpool Essays, edited by R.W. Steel and R.M. Prothero,

London: 277-296.

LIM Hin Fui and FONG Tian Yong 2005. The New Villages in Malaysia: The Journey Ahead,

Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research.

MARKANDAN, Paul 1954. The Problem of the New Villages in Malaya, Singapore: Donald

Moore.

New Straits Times (NST) 20 September 1985. New villages: comprehensive plan for

development.

----- 24 September 1985. Editorial: New villages, old ghosts.

----- 12 May 1986. MCA proposes 15-yr plan for new villages.

----- 13 May 1986. Editorial: new villages.

NEWBOULT, A.T. et al. 1949. Report of Committee Appointed by His Excellency the High

Commissioner to Investigate the Squatter Problem, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.

NYCE, Ray 1973. Chinese New Villages in Malaya: A Community Study, Kuala Lumpur:

Malaysian Sociological Research Institute.

Repas New Village Office 2001. Repas New Village 2001 Population Report, Bentong

(unpublished report).

SANDHU, Kernial Singh 1964a Emergency resettlement in Malaya, The Journal of Tropical

Geography, 18: 157-183.

----- 1964b. The sage of the “squatter” in Malaya, Journal of Southeast Asian History, 5 (1):

143-177.

----- 1973. Introduction. In Ray Nyce, Chinese New Villages in Malaya: A Community Study,

Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Sociological Research Institute: -xxix-lxv.

SHORT, Anthony 1975. The Communist Insurrection in Malaya 1948-1960, London: Frederick

Muller

SIAW, Laurence K.L. 1983. Chinese Society in Rural Malaysia: A Local History of the Chinese

in Titi, Jelebu. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

STEAD, Ronald 1955. The “New Villages” in Malaya, Geographical Magazine, 27: 642-652.

The Star 1 January 2009. First batch of titles given out.

VOON Phin Keong 1972. Size aspects of rubber smallholdings in West Malaysia: a case study of

－ 70 －

- 71 -

Bentong, Pahang. Journal of Tropical Geography, 34: 65-76.

----- 2007. Population Movements and the Chinese Community in Malaysia. Paper presented at

the International Conference on “Chinese Migration in Comparative Perspectives:

Adaptation and Development”, 26-27 October 2007, RELC International Hotel.

VOON Phin Keong and KHOO Soo Hock 1980. The expandable core house and the lower income

groups in Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysian Geographers, 2: 37-60.

----- 1986. The New Villages in Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography,

14: 36-55.

WEBBER, M. L. 1951. Resettlement, Malayan Forester, 14: 155-157.

1996 « 50 », : (Lim Hin Fui and Soong

Wan Yin1996. 50 Years of Chinese New Villages, Kuala Lumpur: Centre for Malaysian

Chinese Studies).

2005 ‹ —— › « »

2005 (Voon Phin Keong 2005. The Chinese Associations of Malaysia:

Role, Function and Characteristics. In National Directory of Chinese Associations, Kuala

Lumpur: Malaysian Federation of Chinese Associations and Sin Chew Daily: xx-xx).

« »10 28 1985 ‹ › (Sin Chew Jit Poh 28 October1985. New Villages:

abandoned by development).

----- 2002 3 4 ‹ › (Sin Chew Daily 4 March 2002. Editorial:

There should be medium- and long-term plans in New Village development).

－ 71 －

- 72 -

Fig. 1. Distribution of New Villages by Year of Establishment

－ 72 －

- 73 -

Fig. 2. Size Distribution of New Villages, 1986

－ 73 －

- 74 -

－ 74 －

- 75 -

－ 75 －

- 76 -

－ 76 －

- 77 -

－ 77 －

- 78 -

－ 78 －

- 79 -

(see Folder: Chinese NVs-Demographic-Maps-Diagrams)

－ 79 －

- 80 -

Table 1. Population of New Villages, 1954 and the Federation of Malaya, 1947

State

Number of

New Villages

Population

of New

Villages

(1954)

As % of

Chinese

Population

in the State

Population

of Chinese

(1947)

As % of

Chinese

Population

in Malaya

Johor 88 117,281 33.1 354,770 18.8

Kedah 34 21,162 18.3 115,928 6.1

Kelantan 14 11,680 - 22,938 1.2

Melaka 17 9,555 9.9 6,144 5.1

N.Sembilan 37 29,040 25.4 114,406 6.1

Pahang 67 46,444 47.7 97,329 5.2

Penang 9 12,221 4.9 247,366 13.1

Perak 124 198,109 44.6 444,509 23.6

Perlis 1 500 4.2 1,788 0.6

Selangor 46 97,112 26.8 362,710 19.2

Trengganu 2 451 2.8 15,864 0.8

Total 439 543,555 28.8 1,884,534 100.0

Source: Corry, 1955; Fell, 1960.

Table 2: Distribution of New Villages at the Time of Establishment by Size Category State 0-99 100-499 500-999 1,000-

4,999

5,000-

10,000

10,000-

Total

Johor 0 18 26 48 2 0 94

Kedah 3 23 13 5 0 0 44

Kelantan 0 9 5 4 0 0 18

Melaka 0 11 3 3 0 0 17

N.Sembilan 0 17 13 9 0 0 39

Pahang 7 36 19 15 0 0 77

Perak 2 36 23 60 5 1 127

Perlis 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Penang 0 1 2 5 0 0 8

Selangor 0 15 10 20 3 1 49

Trengganu 0 3 1 0 0 0 4

Total 12 169 116 169 10 2 478

Source: Sandhu, 1973: xlv-xlvii

－ 80 －

- 81 -

Table 3: Percentage of Chinese Population in New Villages, 1985State 0% 1-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100% Total

Johor 0 2 4 9 34 1 50

Kedah 0 0 4 4 8 8 24

Kelantan 17 4 0 1 0 0 22

Melaka 0 0 0 2 7 4 13

N.Sembilan 5 1 0 1 29 8 44

Pahang 4 0 2 3 35 5 49

Penang 0 0 0 0 6 0 6

Perak 0 4 1 3 58 19 85

Perlis 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Selangor 0 0 0 4 24 7 35

KL 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Trengganu 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

Total 26 11 11 28 204 53 333

Source: Kementerian Kembangunan Negeri dan Luar Bandar (Ministry of National and Rural

Development), 1986

Table 4. Population Change in NVs between the Year of Establishment and 1995

Population

Increase

Population Decrease Not Available State

NV NV NV

Total

Johor 66 79 12 14 6 7 84

Kedah 11 33 16 48 6 18 33

Kelantan - 1 100 - - 1

Melaka 13 68 3 16 3 16 19

N.Sembilan 28 64 5 11 11 25 44

Pahang 28 51 12 22 15 27 55

Perak 74 55 32 24 29 21 135

Perlis - 1 100 1

Penang 9 10 - - 9

Selangor 27 64 4 10 11 26 42

－ 81 －

- 82 -

Trengganu 2 67 1 33 3

Kuala Lumpur 3 100 - - 3

Total 261 61 85 20 83 19 429

Source: compiled from /Lim Hing Hui and Soong Wan Ying, 1996

Table 5: Population Decline among New Villages, 1970-95 and 1980-95

Total Rate of Decline

1970-95(%)

Rate of Decline

1980-95(%)

State

0-24 25-49 50-99 0-24 25-49 50-99

Total NVs %

Johor 5 1 1 4 - 1 12 84 14

Kedah 1 - 3 - 5 7 16 33 48

Kelantan - - - 1 - - 1 1 100

Melaka 1 - 1 1 - - 3 19 16

N.Sembilan 2 1 2 - - - 5 44 11

Pahang 4* 4* - 4 - - 12 55 22

Perak 13 6* 8** 4 1 - 32 135 24

Perlis - - - - - - - 1 0

Pulau - - - - - - - 9 0

Selangor 1 2 - - 1 - 4 42 10

Trengganu - - - - - - - 3 0

Kuala - - - - - - - 3 0

Total 27 14 15 14 7 8 85 429 20

* Includes 1 from the year of establishment

** Includes 2 from the year of establishment

Source: compiled from Corry, 1854; ,1996

－ 82 －

- 83 -

Table 6. Average Family Size of Selected New Villages, 1968-77

Area Number of Family Year Average SizeRubber Smallholder Families, Bentong District (a)

205 1968 7.7

Sungai Ruan New Village, Raub (b)

81 1972 7.4

Meng Kuang New Village, Pahang (c)

167 1973 6.2

Perak/Melaka (d) selected New Villages

1973 8.0

Tangkak New Village (e) 71 1977 8.3

Sources: a. Voon, 1972; b. Khoo and Voon, 1975; c. Cheng, 1976; d. Kementerian Perpaduan Negara, 1973; e. Voon and Khoo, 1980

Table 7. Family Size of Selected Settlements, 1977 and 2001, and Federation of Malaya, 1957

Tangkak NV (1977)

SimpangEmpat (1977)

Repas NV (2001) Family Size(Persons)

Number (%) Number (%) Number (%)

Federation of Malaya (1957)

(%)

1 1 1.4 0 0 22 13.5 11.8 2-4 9 12.7 10 22.7 78 47.9 32.1 5-6 18 25.4 20 45.5 40 24.5 21.6 7-10 28 39.4 10 22.7 19 11.7 26.6 11-15 13 18.3 4 9.1 4 2.5 6.6 16 or more 2 2.8 0 0 0 0 1.6 Number of Families

71 44 163 -

Average Size

8.3 6.1 4.1 5.5

Source: Voon and Khoo 1986; Fell, 1960; Repas NV Office, 2001

－ 83 －

- 84 -

Table 8. Households with Elderly Members and Children, Repas New Village, 2001

Family Size

Householdwith One Elderly Person

Householdwith Two Elderly Persons

Householdwith One Child

Householdwith Two Children

Householdwith Three Children

1 22 - - - - 2 6 13 2 - - 3 - 3 3 - - 4 - 1 - 1 - 5 - 1 - - 1

Total 28 18 5 1 1 Note: Table does not include households in which the elderly live with working

family members Source: Repas NV Office, 2001

VOON Phin Keong: Ph. D. in Southeast Asian Studies, Hull University, England. Former Professor of Geography and East Asian Studies, University of Malaya. He is currently Director, Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, Kuala Lumpur. Postal address: Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, No. 1, Jalan Maharajalela, 50150 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia E-mail: pkvoon@gmail.com

－ 84 －

- 85 -

Is It Feasible for the Portuguese in Malacca to Maintain Ethnic Identity and Culture ?

EGUCHI Nobukiyo (College of Letters, Ritsumeikan University)

Abstract

In this chapter the author focuses on the Portuguese of the Portuguese Settlement in Malacca and examines whether those Portuguese as an ethnic minority are feasible to maintain their ethnic identity and traditional culture in Malaysia, where the Government has been building nation along everything Malayan. The settlement itself was originally created for the poor Portuguese fishermen to live collectively and to maintain their traditional culture including Christian belief in the early 1930’s, but it has been quite difficult for the Portuguese continue fishing mainly because of massive reclamation projects. On the other hand, the Portuguese image has been utilized to promote tourism by the State Government these days. The author discusses the importance of voluntary leadership, under which the residents unite as the Portuguese, utilize tourism development for their survival and restoration of mangrove forest at. the sea shore for fishing.

2008 8 31 Star 51(The right recipe for unity) 51

(Star, 31 August, 2008)

2008 9 ( )(UMNO) (pendatang )

－ 85 －

- 86 -

(New Straits Times September 3, 2008)

15

1511 (Afonso d’Albuquerque)130

1641154 1824

1942 1945 1957 8 31

14

1963

3

2007 66.3% 24.9%7.5% 1.3% (Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia 2007: 4)

32 (Sta Maria 1994: 4)

－ 86 －

- 87 -

148km245km

200775 9000 3 1.3%1650km2(Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia 2007: 1)

1

(1511~1641 ) (1641~1824 )1824~1942 1945~1957

57% 32% %

Melaka Tourist Information Centre1930 ,

2008 7 7

2km (Ujong Pasir)

118 1,200 1

－ 87 －

- 88 -

1920 2

1933

164(Bandar Hilir) (Tranquerah)

(2008 8 89 )15 1

9

1 13

1949 2899

－ 88 －

- 89 -

1979Save Portuguese Community Committee

1930(Sta Maria 1994: 39)

6040 80ft( 90 ) 1 14 48ft( 19 )

3

1 4,5 1968 14.89 (Eng : 274)

1985(Medan Portugis)

1930

102008 1

)

1 450150 25 15

－ 89 －

- 90 -

18 241 ( 2)

700100 (SEDC)

550 10250

2(9 )

－ 90 －

- 91 -

JKKK:

Jawatankuwasa

Kemajuan Dan

Keselamata Kampung

Perkampung

Portugis Melaka

(Regedor)

14

RPPSM: Regedor ’s

Panel Portuguese

Settlement Malacca

30 55

5

Senior

Citizen Association

Portuguese Settlement

45

50 ~55

300

1

Funeral Association

Portuguese

Settlement Malacca

1952 1

50

40

2 ( ) 1

2006 44,463 122 2007 44,450 122 2008(1~7 )

25,510 121

:2008 8 JKKK

M 2008 82400 76

－ 91 －

- 92 -

ER 2007 8 31 ER 41 5 6

1 5 30 40 1300 900

2,0003,000 [ ]

( ) 1 8 920 50 20

[] 1 1000

1 ER(2007 8 26 )

A(2008 8 51 ) A A 515

8 27 46

(ponpet)67 15

17 A 18

－ 92 －

- 93 -

3,4A 15 4,000

3 140 2,000 4 5

4,0003 300 80~100

50 6 50 5010 50~60

5 1,500

2

2008 8 28

3 4

2008 8 31

2008 8 31

－ 93 －

- 94 -

( )

B(2008 8 37 ) B 38 2(71 ) 2008

12 B

12 12 2 10 9 B

B B B6 1991

1B 7 3 B

1995B

B 19971998 1997

B16

1998 B 5

3 B 1 (2008 ) ( )

B 800 320

500 ( ) 125

500 (2 ) 120

(2 ) 60

200

(2 ) 100

(

)

85

600

190 1,800 1,800

－ 94 －

- 95 -

H(2008 8 52 ) H 13 1 25 100

20 515 20~25

2008 815 1 1

1 201 200

1 20 1 2970 20 1,400

1 1 1 1,400

5 2008 8 31

41

14

(Kristang Cristang)

－ 95 －

- 96 -

11960 (Sarkissian 2000)

1 6 31

6 2007 8 27

1(reclamation)

－ 96 －

- 97 -

1988

1992(Sta Maria 1994: 72)

19941,949.2 76.8

5.4ha (The New Straits Times 1994 7 1 )

10

2007

2

400~7001000

34

－ 97 －

- 98 -

7 2008 8 30

1920(Chin and Jorge 2005: 239)

300m

1973 802500

80~90 2008 8 30

( 7)1

Sta Maria 1982: 230

－ 98 －

- 99 -

4 ( )

1990 940 1,631 1,209 955 1,163

2000 1,600 2,895 2,153 1,274 2,020

(Amanah Salam Bumiputera)

4 1990 2000

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia 2007: 37

1990

1993 100%UNMO

(Sta Maria 2002: 9)UNMO

－ 99 －

- 100 -

7

(2008 8 30 )

8

2008 8 30

－ 100 －

- 101 -

( )

2008

2006 ~2008 B

18401008

2007 8 24 29 2007 12 26~30 2008 8 30~9

5

Chin, Lim Huck and Fernando Jorge, Malacca Voices from the Street, 2005, Malacca: Lim Huck

Chin.

2008

Eng, Chan Kok “The Eurasians of Melaka,” Kerniat Singh Sandhu and Paul Wheatly, eds.,

Melaka: The Transformation of a Malay Capital Volume 1. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University

Press, 1983, pp.264~281.

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Buku Maklumat Perangkaan 2007 (Statistics Handbook

Malaysia 2007). 2007, Putrajaya: Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia

Sarkissian, Margaret, ’Albuquerque’s Children: Performing Tradition in Malaysia’s Portuguese

Settlement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Sta Maria, Bernard, People My Country: The Story of the Malacca Portuguese Community.

Malacca: The Malacca Portuguese Development Centre, 1982.

Sta Maria, Joseph, The Eurasian Dilemma. Melaka.1994 UNDI Nos by Di Aki? (Where Do We

Go from Here? Portuguese Land Title Dilemma). Malacca: Sakti Bersatu Enterprises Sdn.

－ 101 －

- 102 -

Bhd, 2002.

－ 102 －

- 103 -

2000 2349 1412005 2675 239 5

100 1997 982000 2005

GDP 4.2% 4.5% 200075.1 2005 177.76

2005 1702000 2005

3.4% 18.8%2006-2010 2010

2

2006 09

Jengka1414 2 (kongsi) 24 44

68

Jengka22 22Jengka23 23

1,000

－ 103 －

- 104 -

2006 122007 2008

12

1969 1971 (NEP)

198021

2 3

37 15

8 1 9 2

2005 8

－ 104 －

- 105 -

FELDA

1998 FeldaFelda Plantations Sdn. Bhd. 9,346

37% 3,498 63% 5,498 Felda17,602

2002 Felda 69%(Laporan Sukutahun Pertama 2002 Kumpulan FELDA)

37 1 53 000 600

100 40098.5%

199 201961 1986 1960 6 1970

1980 4 1970 1979 27

－ 105 －

- 106 -

1991 2000

501970 (Jengka1)

－ 106 －

- 107 -

2000 50 601 22(Jengka22)

1981 2000 40

21 1

1

2

－ 107 －

- 108 -

3 22

30002004

200758 2

21 5833

58 Felda 100% Felda Technoplant Sdn.Bhd. Felda Technoplant Sdn.Bhd.

－ 108 －

- 109 -

1 2

2006 12 53 22 3151

RM 1 30 15,000

11 261

6 7 3 82 7 6 11

RM700 RM900

2

51 3951 16 3

53

2 4 RM1,000

4 1 3001

0 2

300

2007 58 2008 50108

－ 109 －

- 110 -

(1) 21 30 31 40 2041

(2)(3)(4)

(5)

(6)2 30

16(7)

10301 500 100 300

(8) 101 200 45%201 300 37% 50 100

－ 110 －

- 111 -

(9) 101 200 201 300100 300 400

15

－ 111 －

- 112 -

50

7

20 1989

－ 112 －

- 113 -

FLDA(Felda)

2001

EPU Prime Minister ’s Department, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, 2006

EPU Prime Minister ’s Department, Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010,

2008

EPU Prime Minister ’s Department, Eighth Malaysia Plan 2001-2005, 2001

FELDA , Annual Report 2006

FELDA, Laporan Tahunan, 2006

FELDA, Laporan Sukutahun Pertama 2005 Kumpulan FELDA, 2006

FELDA, Pembangunan Tanah Usaha dan Pencapaiannya, 1995

Fong Chan Onn, The Felda Mode of Integrating Population and Development: Its Impact and

Efficacy, 1982

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia. Laporan Penyiasatan Migrasi Malaysia 2000, 2001

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia. Migrasi Dalaman di Malaysia, 2006

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia. Profil Migran Malaysia 1992-2003, 2006

Lee Boon Thong et al, FELDA Felda’s Fifty Years: Land Pioneers to Investors, 2007

Sulong Mohamad et al.,Pembangunan Tanah di Malaysia, 2007

Tunku Shamsul Bahrin et al, FELDA 21 Years of Land Development, 1977

Tunku Shamsul Bahrin et al, FELDA Three Decades of Evolution, 1988

Institut Pembangunan Tanah FELDA: Banci Penoroka FELDA, 1991

－ 113 －

- 114 -

1

2008 9 2

4

2006 12 30

6

2008 9 2

3

2008 9 2

5

2007 1 1

2

2008 9 2

－ 114 －

- 115 -

Tinjauan Pemakanan

Tarikh: _____(Bulan)______(Hari)__________(Tahun)

Warganegara: _________________

Umur: _______ tahun

Jantina: 1. Lelaki 2. Perempuan 3. Perempuan Mengandung 4. Perempuan Menyusu Bayi

Pekerjaan: ___________________ Tinggi: __________sm Berat: ___________kg

S1. Apakah yang anda makan semalam? Senaraikan setiap sarapan.

Makan Pagi

Makan Tengahari

Makan Malam

Makan Ringan

S2. Dengan siapakah anda makan? Tandakan (/) bagi setiap sarapan.

Semua ahli

keluarga

Beberapa orang

ahli keluarga

Seorang

diri

Kawan-kawan Lain-lain

Makan Pagi

Makan Tengahari

Makan Malam

Makan Ringan

S3. Berapa kalikah biasanya anda makan dalam seminggu di tempat-tempat berikut?

Isi tempat kosong dengan nombor dari 0 hingga 7.

Masak dan

makan di

rumah

Beli di luar

dan makan di

rumah

Makan di luar

(contoh di gerai

atau restoran)

Lain-lain

Makan Pagi

Makan Tengahari

Makan Malam

Makan Ringan

－ 115 －

- 116 -

S4. Berapa kerapkah anda makan kategori makanan berikut? Tandakan (/) bagi setiap

kategori.

Setiap kali

sarapan

Dua kali

sehari

Sekali

sehari

Sekali

seminggu

Jarang-jarang

Nasi, Roti, Mi

Sayuran

hijau/kuning

Sayuran

berwarna cerah

Ubi kentang

Buah-buahan

Daging, ikan,

telur

Kekacang dan

keluaran soya

Susu dan

keluaran

tenusu

Makanan

berminyak

Rumpair laut

Kopi, teh, jus

Alkohol

S5. Adakah anda makan makanan segera? Berapa kerap? Bulatkan jawapan anda.

1. Setiap hari

2. Dua atau tiga kali seminggu

3. Sekali seminggu

4. Sekali atau dua kali sebulan

5. Jarang-jarang

S6. Apakah alasan memilih makanan yang anda makan? Pilih tiga jawapan yang paling

berkaitan kepada anda dan bulatkan.

1. Baik untu kesihatan

2. Nampak sedap

3. Murah

4. Sedia untuk dimakan

5. Sudah biasa dengannya

6. Dikenali ramai

7. Suka rasanya

8. Mudah untuk dibeli

S7. Adakah anda melakukan senaman (atau bermain sukan?)

1. Setiap hari

2. Dua atau tiga kali seminggu

3. Sekali seminggu

4. Sekali atau dua kali sebulan

－ 116 －

117

5. Jarang-jarang

S8. Adakah anda merokok?

1. Tidak

2. Kurang daripada 10 batang sehari

3. 20 batang atau lebih sehari

S9. Apakah yang anda fikirkan mengenai pemakanan harian anda? Pilih yang sesuai.

1. Makan jenis-jenis makanan yang

berbeza untuk keseimbangan yang

baik

2. Tidak makan pada lewat malam

3. Makan dengan perlahan dan kunyah

dengan baik

4. Tidak makan terlalu banyak

5. Tidak makan makanan ringan

6. Tidak makan makanan berminyak

7. Tidak makan makanan manis

S10. Bagaimanakah anda mengetahui maklumat mengenai kesihatan? Pilih yang sesuai.

1. Sekolah

2. Bapa

3. Emak

4. Datuk/nenek

5. Kawan-kawan

6. Buku, surat khabar, TV

7. Lain-lain

S11. Adakah anda mempunyai masalah kesihatan pada masa sekarang?

1. Ya 2. Tidak

Jika ‘ya’ nyatakan jenis sakit.

1. Sakit belakang di bahagian bawah

2. Sakit kepala

3. Sakit perut

4. Sakit tulang belakang

5. Sakit dada

6. Leher kejang

7. Sesak nafas

8. Lain-lain

9.

Terima kasih atas jawapan anda.

－ 117 －

118

Borang Soal SelidikKualiti Hidup Pekerja-pekerja Indonesia di Kawasan Jengka

Bahagian A (Keterangan diri)

1. Tarikh: _____(Hari)_____(Bulan)_______(Tahun) 2. Nama:__________________ 3. Tempat lahir: ____________ 4. Tempat tinggal:_____________ 5. Umur: ______________ tahun. 6. Jantina: 1. Lelaki 2. Perempuan (bulatkan) 7. Tahap pendidikan/pelajaran: ____________________ 8. Jumlah tahun pendidikan_____tahun. 9. Bujang/berkahwin/lain-lain (sila nyatakan):________________________ 10. Nyatakan ahli keluarga/tanggungan dan bilangan (tidak termasuk anda): __________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Bahagian B (Pekerjaan dan lain-lain di Jengka)

11. Tarikh sampai ke Jengka: _____(Hari)_____(Bulan)_________(Tahun) 12. Perjalanan dari Indonesia ke Jengka: (a) 1. Bayar sendiri atau 2. Dibayar oleh pihak majikan (bulatkan) (b) Jumlah perbelanjaan perjalanan______________ringgit atau rupiah (bulatkan) 13. Permit bekerja/ visa: _______tahun 14. Tempoh kontrak: ________tahun. 15. Pengalaman bekerja (sebelum menyertai Jengka): _________________tahun 16: Jenis pekerjaan: pekerja ladang/ketua kumpulan pekerja/kontraktor (bulatkan) 17. Jumlah jam bekerja setiap hari:________ jam 18. Bilangan hari cuti setiap minggu__________hari. 19. Adakah anda juga bercuti pada hari cuti umum Malaysia (seperti Hari Kebangsaan, Hari Raya dan lain-lain cuti umum)? 1. Ya 2. Tidak (bulatkan) 20. Jumlah pendapatan di Jengka:____________ sehari/seminggu/sebulan (bulatkan) 21. (a) Adakah kerja anda dibayar mengikut kadar untuk satu longgok ATAU satu tan (bulatkan) buah kelapa sawit? Ya atau Tidak (bulatkan) (b) Jika ya, berapa ringgitkah anda dibayar mengikut kadar tersebut?___________ringgit satu longgok/satu tan. 22. Kiriman wang kepada keluarga/tanggungan di Indonesia:_________________ringgit 23. Jenis rumah di Jengka:__________ 24. Bilangan ahli dalam satu rumah di Jengka:________________orang. 25. Sewa rumah di Jengka______________________ringgit sebulan bagi setiap orang. 26. Pengangkutan yang dimiliki/dikongsi di rumah Jengka: Motosikal/basikal/atau lain- lain (sila nyatakan):_____________________________ 27. Kemudahan yang dimiliki/kongsi di rumah Jengka: TV/radio/mesin basuh kain/dan lain-lain (sila nyatakan):____________________________________________ 28. Perbelanjaan perubatan: _________________________________ringgit. 29. Lain-lain perbelanjaan hidup:________________________________ringgit. 30. Jumlah wang yang boleh disimpan sendiri:_________________________ringgit sebulan. 31. Prospek masa depan (rancangan) anda selepas pulang semula ke Indonesia dari Jengka (contohnya membuka bisnes atau membeli tanah untuk pertanian, rumah atau lain-lain (sila terangkan) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Terima kasih atas jawapan anda.

－ 118 －

119

Monograph of Fishing Village and the Economic Phase of Gill Net Fishers in Kampong Sekukuh, Pahang

TAWA Masataka (College of Letters, Kwansei Gakuin University)

Abstract

This report describes a geographical monograph of small scale fishing village in the east coast of Malay Peninsula and analyzes some economic phase of gill-net fishers in the village. At the right side of the mouth of the Pahang river, the largest river in Malay Peninsula, is a small fishing village, Kampong Sekukuh (Sekukuh village), which is situated on the mangrove swamps and the muddy lowlands.

Before 1960s the main subsistence economy of this village was paddy field culture. The Malay farmers cultivated rice field in the inland. They also always operated the fishing in the tidal creeks or inshore area of the South China Sea to get daily side dishes. By the large flood caused by a combination of high tide and heavy rain and winds in the end of 1960s, however, the paddy fields were totally destroyed. The villagers were forced to live in the wretched circumstances. At the same era, mid-1970s, the Cambodian refugees under the support of Malaysian government have settled in this village and have started the fishery with local Malay middlemen. After that this village has taken on an aspect of the commercial fishing village.

The first part of this report, chapter 1-4, describes the short history of KamponSekukuh, some life histories of the Cambodian fishers, an economic way of life of a Malay household, and the present conditions of inshore fishery. The second part, chapter 5, analyzes the fishing activity and the economic conditions of gill-net fishers with the aid of account notes on which a middleman check daily wholesale purchase.

This is a preliminary report. More detailed research data have to be collected in the future.

5,100 small-scale fishery artisanal fishing

127 2002

－ 119 －

120

55 252 80

1/42002 82,630 24,869

30 17,730 2151 80 50

20

Firth, 196660

Wan,1980 Ghazali and Mohammad, 1992 Jahaya, 1994 ,1995,2004

1960

30

,2003

－ 120 －

121

50kmKampong Sukukuh Daerah

Tanjung AgasPasir Panjang

6km 11

3,000 6802,000 Orang Asli 100

200 1960600

500m m2

Kg. Sekukuh Darat 196010

3km

4

bubu 19601969 11 1

3

1976 77 5Penghulu

Pekan

－ 121 －

122

162005

52008 3km

110 262

1970

UNHCR

PERKIM1

PERKIM RM300

KampotKampong Saom

Y 2004 4210km

30 1992 2

K 2006 58

－ 122 －

123

2

9M 2006 37

M4 3 1 2

H 2007 40 Battambang24

Kas Kong 10 13

H ID 4 22

M20

1989 21 10

3 230

3

1994 26 42 2

duri ikan masin6

Y 2008 33300

1Y

Y

1240

gelama

S 50 19755 6

－ 123 －

124

2008 28

RM300

S 25 95 4 1 3

10 S1

RM152 1 3

SA

SA 7 30

2000

2

1.5 110 10

2008 SA2 80a 1

19691 7 10 2

SA 2008 58 48 19756 1 7

1 8SA

2RM100 150 LKIM: Lembaga Kemajuan

Ikan Malaysia, Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia 103 5

－ 124 －

125

198090 10

RM830 1 3

1998 2005Tanah Merah 2006 8

3 SA27 25 6

2 2008RM500 600 2008 2

24 2 3 1SA

14kmRM400 500 SA

23 20067 2007

RM300 600 20082 20

2006 2007RM600 700 RM400

RM200 2008

15 14

SA 1SA RM150

RM150 200RM600 700 1

RM500 600 RM140 ( RM40RM60 RM40) 50kg RM135

RM100 RM250 RM2002 1 RM10

RM600 700

Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia Permohonan Pembiayaaan IkhtiarSA RM4.80

SA 180a

－ 125 －

126

kembongselar pelaling

duri

120 40 804 7m 10

12 50 100m

1.5 1.8m 2.5 12

1 1 1 8

6 Batu 6 9 Batu 9 16 Batu 16 16

5 1011

3

10 4

2

3km 5 92006 8 30 SA

SA 21

－ 126 －

127

11 02

11 20

11 45

12 15 50m

12 25

12 3212 44 2 1013 10 1

13 3513 3713 4714 15

14 2314 2815 10

3 1

781

50kg 15 30 SAkg RM1 RM32

5l RM11 RM21

8 12 sondong

－ 127 －

128

chheub

Deap, et.al., 20034.5m 2 1.1m X

18cm9cm gliding shoes 7mm

udang puteh 1 1 3kg3

kasar 10cm RM10/kg sedang :5cmRM5/kg halus( :2 3cm) RM3/kg

63cm 45cm34cm belangkas

1 100 1207 12 1

7kg RM12/kgkolam

30m 15m

2 3 1300g

MS 2007ikan keli 1.5m 6m 20 30cm

LKIM 17sen 1000 3 1kg 5 6 RM3/kg

haruan 2

3 4 RM9/kg

11

pasar

－ 128 －

129

500g RM7RM7/kg RM10/kg

63

A 3

B 2 C1

1

6

Mtauke

256 9 12 3RM3,000 30

30 1 29

Z35 Chini

252 3

ketam nipah siput tarite

Z 2 tauke

I10

－ 129 －

130

312 10

1 9 21RM1/kg

RM2/kg

20083 1

M2006 2008 M

MM

M 12

5

Mkg

－ 130 －

131

2007 11 1 2008 6 30kg

M

M

MRM10M

1 396 1 46

11 4 55 3

kgkehel RM 30/kg RM 29/kg solo

RM 12/kg RM 5/kgRM2.5/kg M

Kg kuraukerapu kakap

M2 5 M

M

M2007 11 1 2008 6 30 243

35 2081

－ 131 －

132

11 3M

2 2007 12 7 2008 1 6 26 3

22 3 28

7 4 11 193 10

8 210 2 208

74 3510 44 20

1 2 5 48 RM7,000 2 2

RM900 3RM600

10 6 RM600M

2008 4

－ 132 －

133

2006 8 2007 8

1 Perubuhan Kabajikan Islam Se-Malaysia 1960

2 RM1 1 2008 30 33

3 Tay-E Aqua Animal

Feed (M) Sdn. Bhd.

2007 18 34 50ha

15

4 Lesen Vesel dan Reralatan

Menangkap Ikan

5 15l RM30 33

10 2

3l 5l

5 6l

6.

kg RM30 RM33

RM35 RM40 45

1981 9 358p.

200444 3 pp.1-22

1995pp.201-224

2003 53 3 pp.83-101

－ 133 －

134

2008118p.

Abu Khair M. M. and M. Azmi Ambak (1996) Marine Fishes and Fisheries of Malaysia and Neighbouring Countries. University Pertanian Malaysia Press, 744p.

Deap, L., P. Degen and N, van Zalinge (2003) Fishing Gears of the Cambodian Mekong.Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute of Cambodia (Cambodia Fisheries Techinical Paper Series, Volume IV), 269p.

Firth, R. (1966) Malay Fishermen: Their Peasant Economy. The Norton, 398p.

Ghazali Basri and Mohammad Puad Zarkashi (1992) Islam and Rural Development in Malaysia with Special Reference to Malaysian Fishermen. In King, V. and Nazaruddin Mohd. Jali eds. Issues in Rural Development in Malaysia. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, pp.398-408.

Jahaya Yahaya 1994 Women in Small-scale Fisheries in Malaysia. University of Maraya Press, 82p.

Perikanan, Kementerian Pertanian Malaysia (1989) Ikan-Ikan Laut Dagangan Malaysia (Commercial Sea Fishes of Malaysia), Fisheries Research Institute, Penang with cooperation of the Publications Unit, Ministry of Agriculture.

Scott, J. S. (1959) An Introduction to the Sea Fishes of Malaya. Kuala Lumpur Government Press, 180p.

Wan Hashim (1980) Komuniti Nelayan di Pulau Pangkor. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 105p.

－ 134 －

135

2 2007 11 2008 6

－ 135 －

136

－ 136 －

137 － 137 －

138

1

4

6

3

2

5

－ 138 －

－ 139 －

140

141

The Distribution of Population and Socio-Economic

Condition in East Malaysia, Sarawak

Tarmiji Masron1 and FUJIMAKI Masami2

1Section of Geography School of Humanities

Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800 Penang, Malaysia

2College of Letters, Ritsumeikan University 603-8577 Kyoto, Japan

Abstract This paperwork will discuss the spatial distribution of population in Sarawak from 1970 to 2000. Some of the issues that this study will try to analyze are the spatial changes of population density and household, employment and education. The main data source for this study was Malaysia’s population and housing census carried out every ten years namely in 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2000. The result of this study showed the existence of some connection between population density and household number and programs as well as the state’s development focus.

1.0 Introduction

Since joining Malaysia in 1967, Sarawak has experienced many changes whether in socio-economic or physical development. From the aspect of geography, Sarawak is the largest state in Malaysia. It has an area of 124,450 square kilometre or 37.7 percent of the total area of Malaysia (Department of Statistics Malaysia 1984). Sarawak is rich with multiple ethnicities and cultures and has more than 45 spoken languages. In 2002, the administrative boundary divided Sarawak into 11 divisions, 31 districts and 58 sub-districts.

2.0 History of Sarawak

Modern history has witnessed Sarawak’s first foreign occupation from 24.9.1841 to 20.9.1848 by James Brooke. During his time, the area under his jurisdiction was about 3,000 square miles. Its coastline was from Tanjung Datu to Kuala Sungai Samarahan. The river of Sarawak and Lundu was part of this stretch. The width of its area was 60 miles inland. It reached the border of Kalimantan. During this period, Kalimantan was under Dutch rule. The total population of Sarawak in 1841 was estimated to be 10,500 people, 1,500 of them Malays living near the coastline. The number of Chinese merchants and gold miners was estimated to be 1,000 people and the Land Dayaks

－ 141 －

142

which was estimated to be 8,000 people, lived mostly in the hilly interior region. In 1860, Mukah was conquered by James Brooke. He became the first Rajah of Sarawak after defeating Shariff Masahor. In 1882, the states from Tanjung Kidurong (Bintulu division) to Tanjung Baram were surrendered to Charles Brooke (The second Rajah of Sarawak). From 1890 to 1904, Limbang, Trusan and Lawas which were previously parts of Sabah, became parts of Sarawak.

Sarawak has five main ethnic groups, namely Malay, Iban, Melanau, Bidayuh and Chinese. In addition, there are 10 indigenous groups living in Sarawak. Until now, the main economic activity or employment for the people of Sarawak are agriculture, fishing as well as working in the public and private sectors. The state’s GDP rate was 4.6 percent. Meanwhile, the 2000 population and housing census showed that 61.31 percent of the population was in the working age population and 4.28 percent was senior citizen.

3.0 Data and Method

This study involves census coverage from 1970 to 2000. Therefore, the National Population and Housing Census from Department of Statistics Malaysia were used among them were Population and Housing Census Report 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2000, Population Census General Report, Vital Statistics Time Series 1963 – 1998, State/District Data Bank 2000, and Vital Statistics Malaysia 1003. ArcView GIS software was used to analyze the Sarawak’s population distribution data.

4.0 Change in Spatial Population & Socio-Economic From 1970 – 2000

As the state with the largest area, Sarawak faced challenges and obstacles in ensuring a balanced distribution for development and economic opportunity. Table 1 showed the Development Composite Index by State in Malaysia for 2005. This table clearly showed that Sarawak has a lot to work on in ensuring the state’s continues to develop and successful in the effort of a balanced distribution of development and economic opportunity. According to the table, Sarawak’s Economic Index [EI] of 94.8% showed that the state was positioned at number 11 out of 13 states. The Social Index [SI] of 98.4 percent placed Sarawak in the 12th position out of 14 states. The Development Composite Index [DCI] of 96.6 percent positioned the state 11 out of 14 states. This showed that Sarawak is lagging behind in the aspects of economic and social development.

Prior to joining Malaysia in 1963, Sarawak has conducted its first population census in 1939. The estimated population was 490,585 people. It was then followed by two more censuses in 1947 and 1960 where the recorded population was 546,385 and 744,529 respectively (Fernandez, et. Al. 1976:9). The annual average population

－ 142 －

143

growth rate between 1960 and 1970 was 2.75 percent. Urbanisation is an index to evaluate the importance and the increase of urban

population of a country influenced by fertility, mortality and migration. Other than that urbanisation also act as a centre that can boost the development of socio-economic, politic, culture and the dissemination of useful information to strengthen the national development aspect as well as achieving prosperity and well being for the citizens. In 1991, Malaysia has defined urban area as gazetted area including the impervious area adjacent to its border with the combination of both areas having a population of 10,000 or more (Department of Statistics Malaysia 1995:29). Since 30 years ago population migration played an important role in influencing the population distribution and density of the states and districts in Malaysia. Latest development showed that more people are migrating from one urban area to another instead of from rural area to urban area as in the 1970s and 1980s. The change in population migration flow has many negative implications to the existing urban environment apart from having to provide new public amenity.

In this situation since 30 years, Sarawak’s urbanisation trend has showed an increasing percentage (Table 2). Based on this table the total urban population increased from 15.3 percent in 1970 to 46.5 percent in 2000. It means in 2000 there were 963,232 Sarawak’s population lived in the urban area compared to 149,873 in 1970. There were only three cities namely Sibu, Kucing and Miri. Later in 2000 the number increased to 10 cities.

In general the total population number was small and the distribution was uneven (Jackson, 1976). The sparse distribution of Sarawak’s population density was influenced by its geography. Based on the population census, the population density for each square kilometre was 8.0 (1970), 10.0 (1980), 13.0 (1991) and 16.0 (2000) (Department of Statistics Malaysia 2001). This showed that Sarawak needs more population increase in the future to develop its socio-economic potential areas for industrialization, education, tourism, mining, agriculture and so on. In this context, socialization process will determine the quality of population especially through education and skills. Therefore, investment in human resource development played important role in producing human capital that will drive the economic and country’s development.

4.1 Density As the largest state in terms of size, it has influenced the population density rate for this state. Other than that the population density was also influenced by low birth rate. Besides demography, other factors such as economic opportunity, health and history also influenced the Sarawak’s population density scenario. The other influencing factors were government policy and the changes in administrative boundary involving the division, district and sub districts boundaries.

－ 143 －

144

Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4 showed the spatial distribution of population density for Sarawak in 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2000. In 1970, only 13 divisions have population for each kilometre. This showed that there were less people in the districts such as Mukah, Bintulu, Baram, Kapit, Kanowit, Lubok Antu and Simunjan. Other than low birth rate factor, these districts have larger areas as compared to other districts.

In addition to the effect of natural population growth, the redelimitation of divisions in 1980 has an effect to the population density rate. From the analysis it was found that only five divisions recorded less than one person for every kilometre namely Song, Kaput, Beluga, Abram and Laws. Meanwhile, Kuching, Bau, Serian, Seribas, Kalaka, Sibu and Dalat recorded high density rate when compared to other divisions in Sarawak.

In 1991, the redelimitation of divisions and natural population growth also influenced the population density rate. From the analysis, only three divisions recorded population density of less than a person for each kilometre namely Belaga, Song and one new district, Tatau. In 2000 there was no division with less than one person for every kilometre. Again, the natural population increase and the redelimitation of all division were the important factors that contributed to these circumstances.

4.2 Household Figure 5, 6, 7 and 8 showed the household spatial distribution by divisions in Sarawak for 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2000. The increase in total population and the growth of new housing area have an effect on the rise of household number in Sarawak. Large cities such as Kuching, Sibu and Miri recorded high household number. The concentration of economic activity and infrastructure facilities were important factors in the increase of total population in the city area thus the increase in household number. In 1970, Kuching recorded the highest household number followed by Sibu and other city. In 1980, Kuching being the state capital continues to record the highest household number followed by Sri Aman, Sibu and Miri. Urbanisation process and economic activities have motivated the population to choose city as their dwellings for seeking employment opportunity. This situation has influenced the household number recorded in 1991. Although Kuching still recorded the highest household number, followed by Sibu and Miri, new divisions have began to record a high household number namely Serian, Sri Aman, Bintulu and Marudi. In 2000, there was change in the household spatial distribution in Sarawak. Other than the divisions’ redelimitation factor, natural population growth as well as the convergence of economic activity in the main cities have contributed to the existing spatial pattern. Kuching still recorded the highest household number, followed by Miri and Sibu. Nevertheless, there were other divisions that recorded increasing household number namely Marudi, Kapit, Sarikei, Sri Aman and Serian.

－ 144 －

145

4.3 Education Study has showed that education contributed to the economic growth of some Asian countries (Ogawa and Tsuya 1993:55). From the experiences of East Asia countries such as Japan and South Korea, the best education system is very important to enable a country to advance in economic industrialization (Takatoshi Ito 1997). By taking the success of some Asian countries as an example, it can motivate Malaysia, especially Sarawak to place importance on human resource development by emphasizing the primary and secondary school education and simultaneously eradicating illiteracy and creating learned society.

Population census related to education was published beginning 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2000. The data was about school going population according to the highest achievement and the age group of 0-4 to 65 years and above. Based on the 1970 annual population census it was found that 60.4 percent of the population were non-school going population, 30.4 percent with primary education, 6.1 percent lower secondary and 3.4 percent upper secondary (Table 3). Information on higher education achievement was not published. The table also showed that 80.0 percent population in the age group of 45-49 years and above have never been to school. For the population in the age group of 25-29 to 40-44 years, only 50.0 percent went to school. In the supposedly school going age group of 5-9 years, only 45.9 percent were educated followed by 70.3 percent in the age group of 10-14 years and 40.9 percent in the age group of 15-19 years were educated.

The Sarawak’s population highest achievement in education for 1980 was showed in Table 4. As a whole the number of Sarawak population with primary school education was 33.5 percent. This followed by lower and upper secondary achievement with 12.5 and 6.1 percent respectively. Meanwhile, less than one percent was with vocational and tertiary education. Comparison of education achievement in 1970 and 1980 showed there was slight change especially in the secondary education level. For example, there was still 72.0 percent population in the age group 45-49 year did not go to school followed by 77.0 percent for the 50-54 years age group and the next group was more than 80.0 percent. Nevertheless there was a rise in the entrance to lower and upper secondary school especially for the age group of 10-14 and 15-19 years. If in 1970 the entrance to upper secondary school was less than 1.0 percent however in 1980 the number has increased to 6.0 percent. These illustrate the awareness of the Sarawakian to obtain higher education achievement and the progress can be observed in the 1991 and 2000 census.

The education achievements in 1991 were improving especially as the number of non-school going groups has decreased for all age group. For example the number of non-school going population for the age group up to 20-24 years was less than 10.0 percent, compared to more than 20.00 percent in 1970 (Table 5). Another example, in

－ 145 －

146

the 30-34 years to 35-39 year age group only 18.23 percent compared to 41.53 percent previously. The entrance to primary school for the age group 5-9 years showed slight improvement from 58.2 percent in 1970 to 60.1 percent in 1980. The rise in the number of entrance to lower secondary school has continued to increase. Meanwhile, the entrance to upper secondary school for the age group of 15-19 years improved from 19.6 percent to 30.2 percent. The obvious increased happened in the tertiary level to 2.4 percent.

One achievement that should be mentioned here was according to the 2000 census, the number of children entering primary school in the age group of 6-9 years has improved to 88.4 percent. The entrance to lower and upper secondary school also increased from 4.13 percent for the 10-14 years age group and 48.1 percent in the 15-19 years age group. The vocational and technical training achievement is still less than 1.0 percent. Tertiary education jumped to 4.5 percent which is equivalent to 63,386 people. Comparing to data 1991, the entrance to primary and secondary (lower and upper) school showed an increase. As a whole, primary school achievement increased from 32.1 percent to 38.9 percent. In the meantime, the percentage for lower and upper secondary achievement rose from 17.8 and 10.3 to 23.8 and 20.2 percent respectively. The education progress in Sarawak was concurrent with other South East Asian countries which provided primary education for every child as their fundamental basis for their human resource development which then developed their economy (Ogawa and Tsuya 1993). Statistics showed the total number of primary and secondary school in Sarawak rose from 1,220 and 114 in 1970 to 1,255 and 147 in 1997 respectively (Department of Statistics 1970; Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia 2000).

For the past 30 years, Sarawak’s progressing development have affected the changing employment structure. The most obvious change was the declined of population in the agro base industry, hunting, fishing and forestry. In the period from 1970 to 2000 the total population in this employment sector has declined from 66.6 percent to 31.2 percent. This means a lesser population participation which decreased from two third to one third. Indirectly, this showed that the importance of this employment sector in Sarawak’s economy has decreased in terms of employment opportunity and GDP. The second sector that showed increasing population participation was Education, Health, Social Work and Community Services from 10.8 percent to 20.3 percent in the same time period. Following that, the third sector was Wholesale and Retail, Restaurant and Hotel from 4.8 percent to 16.5 percent. Manufacturing sectors showed consistent growth form 1.5 to 8.9 percent. As a whole the changes in population according to employment sectors is an indication that Sarawak is progressing to become developed state and more of its population will soon worked in the manufacturing and services sectors.

－ 146 －

147

5.0 Conclusion

Economic growth and population increase in Sarawak requires a balanced planning from the state government. Moreover, economic development must be parallel with urban and rural population increase. Therefore, the state government has implemented a few strategies in ensuring balanced distribution of development throughout the state as well as benefiting every level of society by providing many economic opportunities such as creating Small Medium Industry (SMI), providing loans for citizen to start up business and small industry, infrastructure, low cost housing and education opportunity to every level of society.

Bibliography Department of Statistics (1970) Annual Bulletin of Staistics – State of Sarawak 1970, Kuching,

Sarawak.

Fernandez, D.Z. et al. (1976) Penduduk-Penduduk Malaysia, Kertas Penyelidikan Bil. 10,

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Hauser, P.M. (1979) World Population and Development – Challenges and Prospects, (Eds),

Syracuse University Press, United States of America.

Jabatan Perangkaan Malaysia (1984) Buku Tahunan Perangkaan 1984, Kuala Lumpur.

-----------------------(1995) Laporan Am Banci Penduduk, Jilid 1, Kuala Lumpur.

---------------------- (2001) Siri Masa Perangkaan Penting Malaysia 1963-1998, Kuala Lumpur.

---------------------- (2000) Bank Data Negeri/Daerah Malaysia 2000, Kuala Lumpur.

---------------------- (2003) Perangkaan Penting Malaysia 2003, Kuala Lumpur.

Jackson, J.C. (1976) Sarawak – Satu kajian Ilmu Alam Tentang Sebuah Negeri Yang Sedang

Membangun, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.

Ogawa, N. dan Tsuya, N.O. (1993) Demographic Change and Human Resource Development in

the Asia-Pacific Region: Trends of the 1960s to 1980s and Future Prospects. Dalam Human

Resouces in Development along the Asia-Pacific Rim, Ogawa, N. et al. (Eds), Oxford

University Press, Singapore: 21-65.

Takatoshi Ito (1997)What Can Developing Countries Learn from East Asia’s Economic

Growth,Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1997. The World Bank,

Washington, D.C.: 183-200.

Usman Hj. Yaakob (2006) The Malaysian Census 2000: Characteristics and Critical Issues,

Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, LXXIX, Part 1: 27-42.

－ 147 －

148

KAPIT

BARAM

BINTULU

MUKAH

MIRI

SIBU

LAWAS

KANOWIT

LIMBANG

SIMANGGANG

LUNDUKUCHING

BINATANG

SARIKEI

KALAKA

BAU

SARIBAS

LUBOK ANTU

SIMUNJAN

SERIAN [ULU SADONG]

100 0 100 Kilometers

Density 1 KM (1970) 01 - 56 - 25

S

N

EW

Figure 1 : Population density 1970

BARAM

KAPIT

BELAGA

BINTULU

MIRI

SIBU

MUKAH

SONG

LAWAS

SRI AMAN

LIMBANG

JULAU

DALAT

LUNDUKUCHING

SARIKEI

KANOWITKALAKA

BAU

SERIBAS

LUBOK ANTU

MATU/DARO

SERIAN [ULU SADONG]

SIMUNJAN

MERADONG

100 0 100 KilometersS

N

EW

Density 1 KM (1980)

1 - 56 - 2526 - 251

0

Figure 2 : Population density 1980

－ 148 －

149

KAPIT

MARUDI

BELAGA

MIRI

BINTULU

TATAUMUKAH

SONG

SIBU

LAWAS

LIMBANG

JULAU

SRI AMAN

DALAT

SERIAN

LUNDU

SARIKEI

KANOWIT

SIMUNJANBAU

BETONG

LUBOK ANTU

SARATOK

DARO

MATU

SAMARAHAN

KUCHING

MERADONG

100 0 100 KilometersS

N

EW

Density 1 KM (2000)

1 - 56 - 2526 - 251

0

252 - 380

Figure 4 : Population density 2000

KAPIT

MARUDI

BELAGA

MIRI

BINTULU

TATAUMUKAH

SONG

SIBU

LAWAS

LIMBANG

JULAU

SRI AMAN

DALAT

SERIAN

LUNDU

SARIKEI

KANOWIT

BAU

BETONG

SEMUNJANLUBOK ANTU

SARATOK

DARO

MATU

SAMARAHAN

MERADONG

KUCHING

100 0 100 KilometersS

N

EW

Density 1 KM (1991)

1 - 56 - 2526 - 251

0

Figure 3 : Population density 1991

－ 149 －

150

BARAM

KAPIT

BELAGA

BINTULU

MIRI

SIBU

MUKAH

SONG

LAWAS

SRI AMAN

LIMBANG

JULAU

DALAT

LUNDUKUCHING

SARIKEI

KANOWIT

KALAKA

BAU

SERIBAS

LUBOK ANTU

MATU/DARO

SERIAN [ULU SADONG]

MERADONG

SIMUNJAN [HILIR SADONG]

100 0 100 Kilometers

Household by district 19801700 - 67006701 - 1170011701 - 2670026701 - 4670046701 - 71700

S

N

EW

Figure 6 : Household by divisions 1980

KAPIT

BARAM

BINTULU

MUKAH

MIRI

SIBU

LAWAS

KANOWIT

LIMBANG

SIMANGGANG

LUNDUKUCHING

BINATANG

SARIKEI

KALAKA

BAU

SARIBAS

LUBOK ANTU

SIMUNJAN

SERIAN [ULU SADONG]

100 0 100 Kilometers

Household by district 19701700 - 67006701 - 1170011701 - 2670026701 - 46700

S

N

EW

Figure 5 : Household by divisions 1970

－ 150 －

151

KAPIT

MARUDI

BELAGA

MIRI

BINTULU

TATAUMUKAH

SONG

SIBU

LAWAS

LIMBANG

JULAU

SRI AMAN

DALAT

SERIAN

LUNDU

SARIKEI

KANOWIT

SIMUNJANBAU

BETONG

LUBOK ANTU

SARATOK

DARO

MATU

SAMARAHAN

MERADONG

KUCHING

100 0 100 Kilometers

Household by district 20001700 - 67006701 - 1170011701 - 2670026701 - 4670046701 - 7170071701 - 101700

S

N

EW

Figure 8 : Household by divisions 2000

KAPIT

MARUDI

BELAGA

MIRI

BINTULU

TATAUMUKAH

SONG

SIBU

LAWAS

LIMBANG

JULAU

SRI AMAN

DALAT

SERIAN

LUNDU

SARIKEI

KANOWIT

BAU

BETONG

SEMUNJANLUBOK ANTU

SARATOK

DARO

MATU

SAMARAHAN

MERADONG

KUCHING

100 0 100 Kilometers

Household by district 19911700 - 67006701 - 1170011701 - 2670026701 - 4670046701 - 71700

S

N

EW

Figure 7 : Household by divisions 1991

－ 151 －

152

Table 1: Development Composite Index by State, 2005

State Economic

Index

Social Index Development

Composite Index

Position

Northern Region

Kedah 95.5 100.2 97.8 9

Perak 99.7 101.2 100.4 7

Perlis 95.0 104.9 99.9 8

Pulau Pinang 109.0 102.4 105.7 2

Central Region

Melaka 106.4 102.1 104.2 3

Negeri Sembilan 101.8 102.9 102.3 5

Selangor 108.4 98.8 103.2 4

W.P. Kuala Lumpur 114.4 104.8 109.6 1

Southern Region

Johor 102.9 98.1 100.5 6

Eastern Region

Kelantan 91.9 94.4 93.1 13

Sabah 82.8 97.2 90.0 14

Sarawak 94.8 98.4 96.6 11

MALAYSIA 100.0 100.0 100.0 14

Source :

Table 2: Population Distribution by Age Group and Highest Education Achievement

Sarawak, 1991

Age

Group Total NSG Pre-school

Primary

school

Lower

Secondary

school

Upper

Secondary

school

Vocational

0-4 212,882 98.1 1.8 - - - -

5-9 200,880 24.7 15.1 60.1 - - -

10-14 185,168 2.9 0.1 61.4 35.5 - -

15-19 170,967 5.1 0.1 16.3 42.3 30.2 1.0

20-24 154,672 9.8 0.1 21.4 32.8 26.0 0.6

25-29 145,959 14.7 0.1 26.7 27.4 21.5 0.4

30-34 123,653 18.8 0.1 40.1 16.7 15.7 0.3

35-39 105,350 23.3 0.1 42.9 15.5 11.8 0.2

40-44 78,963 34.7 0.1 39.0 12.6 8.9 0.1

45-49 65,520 48.1 0.1 35.3 8.7 4.8 0.1

50-54 50,185 56.1 0.1 30.5 7.4 3.3 0.1

－ 152 －

153

55-59 41,944 67.7 0.1 24.4 4.7 2.0 X

60-64 34,472 74.0 0.1 20.8 3.3 1.2 X

65-69 24,687 78.9 0.1 16.7 2.9 0.9 X

70-74 19,790 82.3 0.1 13.8 2.3 0.8 X

75+ 20,646 85.5 0.1 11.6 1.7 0.7 X

Total 1,635,738 551,677

33.7%

34,696

(2.1%)

525,002

(32.1%)

290,263

(17.8%)

168,690

(10.3%)

3,719

(0.2%)

* NSG = Non School Going, X= not less than 6 people dropped

Age

Group

Post High

School

College/

University Un-known

Total

(%)

0-4 - - 0.1 100

5-9 - - 0.1 100

10-14 - - 0.1 100

15-19 3.6 1.4 0.1 100

20-24 5.2 5.2 0.2 100

25-29 2.4 6.7 0.1 100

30-34 2.5 5.6 0.2 100

35-39 1.4 4.7 0.1 100

40-44 0.9 3.6 0.1 100

45-49 0.4 2.4 0.1 100

50-54 0.3 2.1 0.1 100

55-59 0.2 0.8 0.1 100

60-64 0.1 0.4 0.1 100

65-69 0.1 0.3 0.1 100

70-74 0.3 0.3 0.1 100

75+ 0.1 0.2 0.1 100

Total 21,773

(1.3%)

38,537

(2.4%) 1,3810.1% 100

Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia (1995). Populat ion Report Sarawak, Kuala Lumpur. 256-561

－ 153 －

154

Table 3: Total Number of School Going Population by Age Group and Highest Education Achievement Sarawak, 2000.

Age Group

Total Pre School

Primary School

Upper Secondary

Lower Secondary

Vocational/Technical

IKT/ Perd.

Post High School

Tertiary Unknown Total (%)

0-4 28,564 11.6 - - - - - - - - 100

5-9 165,360 - 88.4 - - - - - - - 100

10-14 202,607 - 58.7 41.3 - - - - - - 100

15-19 179,602 - 10.1 28.5 48.1 1.4 0.6 6.2 3.4 1.7 100

20-24 142,514 - 15.5 21.5 33.0 1.4 1.2 4.0 12.6 10.8 100

25-29 141,204 - 17.6 30.0 29.6 1.2 0.5 4.1 8.4 8.6 100

30-34 134,399 - 21.9 30.8 27.3 1.1 0.3 2.8 6.3 9.5 100

35-39 116,774 - 29.7 27.3 24.7 0.9 0.3 2.4 5.7 9.0 100

40-44 96,508 - 45.7 18.4 17.8 0.7 0.3 2.4 5.6 9.1 100

45-49 73,569 - 49.1 19.3 16.0 0.5 0.2 1.6 4.7 8.6 100

50-54 47,146 - 54.7 17.4 13.2 0.4 0.1 1.1 3.8 9.3 100

55-59 28,551 - 60.2 16.2 9.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 3.0 10.0 100

60-64 17,097 - 64.6 16.1 8.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 2.69 7.4 100

65-69 9,913 - 68.0 14.3 6.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 2.2 8.3 100

70-74 6,230 - 68.8 11.8 5.8 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.3 11.6 100

75 + 5,223 - 70.1 12.8 5.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.7 9.0 100

JUMLAH 1,395,261 47,770 (34.9%)

543,302 (38.9%)

331,360 (23.8%)

281,393 (20.2%)

10,046 (0.7%)

4,891 (0.4%)

33,675 (2.4%)

63,386 (4.5%)

79,438 (5.7%)

100%

*IKT= Technical Skill Institute

*Perd.= Commerce

.

Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia (2002). Education and Social Population

Characteristics, Kuala Lumpur, 261.

－ 154 －

155

Table 4: Total Population by Age Group and Highest Education Achievement, Sarawak, 19

Age Group Total Non School Going

Primary School

Lower Secondary

Upper Secondary

Vocational Tertiary Total (%)

0-4 168,711 100 - - - - - 100 5-9 184,969 41.8 58.2 - - - - 10010-147 160,316 9.6 61.7 28.6 0.1 - - 10015-19 136,196 17.0 25.6 37.4 19.6 0.2 0.2 10020-24 109,767 22.2 41.8 15.8 18.6 0.2 1.4 10025-29 95,569 27.9 38.8 16.4 14.8 0.1 2.0 10030-34 77,191 41.4 35.6 14.6 6.4 0.1 1.9 10035-39 63,663 53.4 31.2 8.9 4.8 0.1 1.6 10040-44 50,813 62.7 25.7 7.2 3.3 0.1 1.0 10045-49 45,113 72.0 20.9 4.5 1.9 0.1 0.6 10050-54 38,697 77.0 18.2 3.3 1.2 - 0.3 10055-59 31,534 81.5 14.3 3.0 0.9 - 0.3 10060-64 27,341 84.4 12.0 2.5 0.9 - 0.2 10065 + 43,223 86.8 11.0 1.6 0.3 - 0.3 100

JUMLAH 1,233,103 582,055 (47.2%)

413,688 (33.5%)

153,997 (12.5%)

74,958 (6.1%)

880 (0.1%)

7,525 (0.6%)

100%

Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia (1983). Population Report Sarawak, Vol. 2,

Kuala Lumpur: 594-597

Table 5: School Going Population Distribution by Highest Education Achievement in

Sarawak 1970

Age Group Total Non School

Going Primary School

Lower Secondary

UpperSecondary

Total (%)

0-4 149,629 100 - - - 100 5-9 149,243 54.1 45.9 - - 10010-14 107,594 18.2 70.3 11.3 0.2 10015-19 89,998 27.2 40.9 20.1 11.8 10020-24 70,305 42.0 35.6 12.3 10.1 10025-29 58,985 54.2 30.6 9.1 6.1 10030-34 49,491 63.1 25.8 6.9 4.2 10035-39 44,692 71.1 21.4 4.7 2.8 10040-44 38,932 76.1 18.5 3.4 2.0 10045-49 32,585 80.0 15.1 3.2 1.7 10050-54 30,667 83.0 12.8 2.6 1.6 10055-59 20,726 81.2 15.1 2.2 1.5 10060-64 19,279 86.1 11.3 1.6 1.0 10065 + 25,166 87.5 10.4 1.3 0.8 100

JUMLAH Total

887,292 535,602 (60.4%)

270,300 (30.4%)

54,006 (6.1%)

27,384 (3.1%)

100%

Source: Department of Statistics Malaysia (1976) Fundamental Population Tables of

Sarawak, Part XIII, vol. 1, Kuala Lumpur: 153-155

－ 155 －

156

157

Ethnic relations in the Jelalong Basin, Sarawak: ‘Penanization’ of non-Penan shifting cultivators

SODA Ryoji (Hokkaido Univ.)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the ethnic relations between the Penan and non-Penan in the Jelalong Basin, Sarawak. Penan people are well known as nomadic hunter-gatherers in Borneo Island, although many of them have already settled down and engaged in agriculture. In the late 1980s, when environmentalists’ anti-logging campaign warmed up, the Penan became the symbol of the conservation of nature. For long time, they have been regarded as the poorest people in Sarawak and non-Penan such as Iban and Kayan often express great contempt for the Penan referring to them as animals. In the Jelalong, however, many non-Penan people marry in the Penan community (masuk Penan). This is because the Penan in the area have settled for long time and keep customary rights in land usufruct over wide range in the Jelalong. Vast and fertile land and rich forest, which provide cash income through illegal logging, attracted newcomers such as Iban and Kayan to enter the Penan community. Besides, logging companies and the state and federal governments are also affirmative to give the Penan various kinds of compensation, goodwill money, allowance and subsidies, in order to restrain the protests of the Penan against commercial logging activities. They can make easy money being as the Penan. These economic factors attracted non-Penan people to ‘become a Penan’, even though it means the declination of their social status. These relations between the Penan and non-Penan are good example to re-examine the general images of the Penan in Sarawak.

Melayu Melanau Bidayuh Iban Orang

－ 157 －

158

Ulu

1)

1990Rural Growth Center RGC

2)

sedentarism 3)

4)

PenanKayan

1

－ 158 －

159

1

1

5)

2

6)

7)

8) 1950 70

7,000

9)

2

－ 159 －

160

10)11)

Jelalong PunanVaie Segan

Kejaman

20020

1Sellato and Sercombe (2007)

－ 160 －

161 － 161 －

162

2007 3 2008 1 2 2008 8

2-1Kemena

Tubau Bintulu

4WD

2

2

2-2

7,000 20002,071,506 2000 0.3

－ 162 －

163

12)13) 4,500 50

2,500 20 14)15) 16) 17)

1

1960 197018)

NGO

Rh.Keti33 Rh.Rasa 15

20 19)20 20)

Rh.Udau Rh.Talip 4 6

3pengiran

James Brooke

2-3603,735 29.1

－ 163 －

164

21)

300 400

22)

20

23)20

Rh.Awan

22350km Layar 1 1952

Lupar 6

6

976

24)

20

－ 164 －

165

3-1

1 2008 8

3 81.1kg/acre 9 4,950kg61acres 208.6kg/acre 6 3,650kg

17.5acres2008 5

32008 1 30

－ 165 －

166

12

34

56

78

910

1120

088

520

088

520

088

520

088

420

088

420

088

420

088

420

088

420

088

320

088

319

001

11Rh

.Jam

Rh.J

amRh

.Jam

Rh.

Nug

aRh

.Nug

aRh

.Nug

aRh

.Nug

aRh

.Nug

aR

h.Ra

saRh

.Ras

aRh

.Ras

aBa

nun

ak G

ara

Maw

as a

k K

edat

Jam

ak

Ala

p Pe

san

Bati

ak S

agai

Bet a

k N

gan

Ram

li ak

Inga

nEm

ie a

k B

erau

Nug

a ak

Rep

onBu

di b

in A

bdul

lah

Gra

man

ak

Atan

Selim

an a

k Se

gik

ff

mm

mm

mm

mm

m55

6559

5465

6048

5938

3570

Iban

Iban

Iban

Iban

Iban

Iban

Iban

Iban

Pena

n/Is

lam

Iban

mas

ukPe

nan

Pena

n/Ch

rist

ian

SIB

23

22

4.5

56

65

710

1210

55

30× × ×

××

×75

050

010

030

010

0065

00

400

11

3.5

23

52

00

00

1212

10×

××

××

×75

075

035

00

750

1300

500

-×

××

××

××

××

×

25

1964

1964

1964

1963

1963

1963

1930

1930

1930

310

06

1200

960

03

300

225

030

04

500

440

04

500

5kg/

day×

15da

ys/m

onth

×RM

5=37

5RM

/mon

th

20kg

/day

×15

days

/mon

th×

RM5=

1,50

0RM

/mon

t

15kg

/day

×15

days

/mon

th×

RM

5=1 ,

125R

M/m

ont

10kg

/day

×10

days

/mon

th×

RM

5=50

0RM

/mon

th

10kg

/day

×10

days

/mon

th×

RM

5=50

0RM

/mon

th

20kg

/day

×10

days

/mon

th×

RM5=

1,00

0RM

/mon

t

12kg

/day

×14

days

/mon

th×

RM4=

672R

M/m

onth

8kg/

day×

10da

ys/m

onth

×R

M4=

320R

M/m

onth

1990

220

019

9060

015

030

0RM

/19

9740

019

8630

030

019

8920

002

--

-20

0720

020

0820

05

250

2002

275

020

022

750

600R

M/m

EPF

55Bi

ntul

u

5O

P

1.9R

M7R

M15

RM

156

5

(198

950

0

5 ×kg 5

1 J

elal

ong

2007

×kg

－ 166 －

167

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2008

83

2008

83

2008

83

2008

83

2008

83

2008

83

2008

83

2008

83

2008

83

2008

130

Rh.

Rasa

Rh.R

asa

Rh.

Ras

aR

h.K

eti

Rh.

Ket

iR

h.K

eti

Rh.K

eti

Rh.

Ket

iR

h.K

eti

Rh.

Awan

Kel

ie a

k Se

liman

Ras

a ak

Tan

gon

Budi

bin

Abd

ulla

hM

enga

n ak

Mer

ing

Luca

s Im

bong

Ejak

ak

Amit

Min

ggai

ak

Dul

ahJe

p bi

n Ah

mad

Ova

t Lin

ggok

ak

Luja

hM

anda

l TR

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

3552

3850

4265

7046

50Pe

nan/

Chr

istia

nSI

BPe

nan/

Chri

stia

nSI

BPe

nan/

Isla

mPe

nan/

Paga

nPe

nan

Pena

nPe

nan

Pena

n/Is

lam

Kay

an (m

asuk

Pena

n)Ib

an6

3 pa

su24

gant

ang

55

1011

25

37

515

6026

3018

5

××

××

×

600

650

900

500

250

1,00

01,

000

×

××

-×

××

××

××

×

1

20gu

ni3

53

25

53

1930

1930

1982

1930

1930

-19

7019

5019

5019

5019

701

300

560

04

500

325

0-

330

04

400

240

06

500

12kg

/day

×14

days

/mon

th×

RM

4=67

2RM

/mon

th-

3kg/

day×

10da

ys/m

onth

×RM

4=12

0RM

/mon

th

4kg/

day×

14da

ys/m

onth

×R

M4=

224R

M/m

onth

5kg/

day×

10da

ys/m

onth

×R

M4=

200R

M/m

onth

2 100k

g/m

onth

×RM

4=40

0RM

/mon

th

1989

250

019

863

950

1986

300

1986

250

-19

702

600

1970

800

319

7030

019

7020

030

010

0RM

2005

500

Tuba

u

(198

930

00(1

989

500

(800

1978

2007

×

5

kg

5 ×kg

1 J

elal

ong

－ 167 －

168

1

1

3-2

1992 19901995 35

－ 168 －

169

25)

26) 4

Keruin Kapor Meranti Benua Terentang Perupok1 1,000

500 6001 4 5

10 2

1970

1980 90

4

－ 169 －

170

4-15 1980

3 1

2007

5

－ 170 －

171

compensation

goodwill money

2007 60,000 70,000 2007 210 2456

commission1 5

5 1 1 JKKK2 20

1 3,00015,000

allowance300 JKKK 2 200 300

2007 2008

200720,000

33600

4,000 1,500600 800

－ 171 －

172

4-21997 98

1997 Maju Shipping

12

4WD 2008 8 3

1997 98

2007 3 21

2

－ 172 －

173

19801980 NGO

27)

28)

29)

5-1 Masuk Penan 2007 3 6

3 42008 1

7 55 30)

masuk Penan

－ 173 －

174

masukPenan

7

3 4 1Punan

Ba 1 Bidayuh 1 Tatau Bukitan1 1 Melayu 1

5-27

26

Vyner Brooke

1 11 Niah Suai

－ 174 －

175

2 1Bintangor 1

1 Long Bangan Kenyah 11

215

731)

32)6 4 2 1

1Kebulu 17

33)34)

35)Kajang

－ 175 －

176

BaramBelaga

1970

6

7

－ 176 －

177

1980

masuk Melayu

36)

1980 1990

37)

38)

NGO

－ 177 －

178

1) Soda, R. 2007. People on the move: rural-urban interactions in Sarawak. Kyoto

University Press and Trans Pacific Press. 2) RGC

Soda, R. 2003. Development policy and human mobility in a developing country: voting strategy of the Iban in Sarawak, Malaysia. Southeast Asian Studies 40(4): 459-483.

3) De Haan, A. 1999. Livelihoods and poverty: the role of migration a critical review of the migration literature. The Journal of Development Studies 36(2): 1-47. Mosse, D., Gupta, S., Mehta, M. Shah, V. Rees, J. and the KRIBP Project Team. 2002. Brokered livelihoods: debt, labour migration and development in tribal Western India. The Journal of Development Studies 38(5): 59-88. Leinbach, T. R. 2004. The Indonesian rural economy. In Leibach, T. R. ed. TheIndonesian rural economy: mobility, work and enterprise. Singapore: ISEAS, 3-14. 1 2008

E-Journal GEO 3(1) 1-174) Rigg, J. 1998. Rural-urban interactions, agriculture and wealth: a Southeast

Asian perspective. Progress in Human Geography 22(4): 497-522. Rigg, J. 2001. More than the soil: rural change in Southeast Asia. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

5) Padoch, C. 1982. Migration and its alternatives among the Iban of Sarawak.Hague: The Hague-Martinus Nijhoff.

6) Kedit, P. M. 1980. Modernization among the Iban of Sarawak. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kedit, P. M. 1993. Iban bejalai. Kuala Lumpur: Ampang Press. Lumenta, D. 2008. The Making of a Transnational Continuum: State Partitions and Mobility of the Apau Kayan Kenyah in Central Borneo, 1900 – 2007. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis (Kyoto University).

7) 38) 19) 2008

10) Rousseau, J. 1989. The Peoples of Central Borneo. Sarawak Museum Journal22. Sercombe P. G. and Sellato B. ed. 2007. Beyond the green myth: Borneo’s hunter-gathers of Borneo in the twenty-first century. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.

11) Needham, R. 1972. Punan-Penan. In Frank, M. L. ed. 1972. Ethnic groups of insular Southeast Asia (volume 1: Indonesia, Andaman Islands, and

－ 178 －

179

Madagascar). New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Pres.

12 ) Needham, R. 1953. The social organisation of the Penan, a Southeast Asian People, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Oxford). Kedit, Peter. 1982. An Ecological Survey of the Penan. Sarawak Museum Journal 51: 225-279. Brosius, P. 1991. Foraging in tropical rain forests: the case of the Penan of Sarawak, East Malaysia (Borneo). Human Ecology 19(2): 123-150. Langub, J. 2003. Penan Response to Change and Development. In Padoch, C. and Peluso, N. L. eds. Borneo in Transition: People, Forests, Conservation, and Development (Second Edition). New York: Oxford University Press: 131-150.

1013) 1114) Brosius, P. 1997. Endangered forest, endangered people: environmentalists

representations of indigenous knowledge, Human Ecology 25(1): 47-69. Brosius, P. 2007. Prior transcripts, divergent paths: resistance and acquiescence to logging in Sarawak, East Malaysia. In Sercombe P. G. and Sellato B. ed.Beyond the green myth: Borneo’s hunter-gathers of Borneo in the twenty-first century. Copenhagen: NIAS Press. 289-333.

15) Frank, M. L. ed. 1972. Ethnic groups of insular Southeast Asia (volume 1: Indonesia, Andaman Islands, and Madagascar). New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press.

16) 1417) Sellato, B. and Sercombe, P. G. 2007. Introduction: Borneo, hunter-gathers, and

change. In Sercombe P. G. and Sellato B. ed. 2007. Beyond the green myth: Borneo’s hunter-gathers of Borneo in the twenty-first century. Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 1-49.

18) 40014

19) 12

20) 195020

205 7

Postill, J. 2006. Media and nation building: how the Iban became Malaysian. Berghahn Books.

21 ) Freeman, J. D. (1955), Iban Agriculture, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Freeman, J. D. (1970), Report on the Iban, London: The Anthlone Press. Freeman, J. D. (1981), Some Reflections on the Nature of Iban Society, An Occasional Paper of the Department of Anthropology, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.

22) 1994133-152

23) Cramb, R. A. and Dian, J. 1979 A social and economic survey of the Bintulu extension region. Planning Division, Department of Agriculture, Kuching, Sarawak.

24) Rh.Awan 2008 1

－ 179 －

180

25) 2008

26)

27)

1428) 2001

7: 87-103.2003 NGO

104(2): 37-5329) 930) Cramb and Dian

197931) 8 5 SIB

332) Masuk Melayu

33) 1134) 2335) 2336) 1137) 1990

38) 14

－ 180 －

1840100818 20 B

2009 3 30

56 1075 465 8187

677-2 075 343 0006