Historical Study on Land Transaction in a Perak Kampong, Malaysia 1)

Transcription

Historical Study on Land Transaction in a Perak
Kampong, Malaysia1)
Tsukasa MIZUSHIMA *
I.
Scope
The main objective of the present paper is to
clarify the conspicuous features in land transaction observed since the late 1890s in a kampong
near Kuala Kangsar, Perak, Malaysia. The present paper is the third one discussing historical
change in the area 2) . An analysis of individual
holding through genealogical study will be attempted on another occasion.
As in India, land administration occupied the
central place in British colonial rule in the Malay
Peninsula. Though land revenue did not necessarily compose the main portion of revenue in
contrast to revenue accrued from tax on exports,
the attracting and securing of a stable agricultural
population by offering preferential land tenure
was thought to be critically important 3).
Perak, which came under British colonial rule
in their initial quest for territorial control, experienced a series of land regulations in the late
nineteenth century, as has been discussed elsewhere (Ghee 1976; Mizushima 1994) . Land
policy in British Malaya aimed mainly to entertain a large-scale agriculture while maintaining
small-scale peasant agriculture. Conflicting opinions about land policies to be introduced were
seriously exchanged among colonial administrators like Maxwell and Swettenham4 ). The controversy finally resulted in sets of land policy treating
the two types of agriculture separatelyS). In this
so-called "dual policy" different and discriminative land policies were adopted towards small
holders and large estates respectively (Ghee 1976:
Chapter IV). What was more important than
such differences of opinion or of treatment was,
however, the establishment of exclusive state land
ownership. Under the newly created state ownership, land grids were gradually extended all over
the Peninsula. The process of demarcating, numbering, assessing, and alienating land has been
going on since then in many parts, with the created holdings being registered in the land records.
What was, then, the outcome of the colonial
land policy in the Malay Peninsula? What type of
rural society has been formed? We will investigate the historical change experienced by the
Malay rural society from the aspect of land transactions.
II.
Source and Settings
The main source used in this paper is the Entry
of Mukim Register (EMR) and Geran Mukim
(GM), both being the land records on small
holdings 6). "Mukim" is the term for the primary
administrative unit, formed from the beginning of
colonial rule. EMR is the older set and GM is the
newer one. The latter gradually replaced the
former after independence.
EMR/GM has been the fundamental source on
peasant's landholding. Whenever a lot in a
Mukim was granted (alienated), the details of the
holding such as lot number, location, extent, assessment, nature of cultivation, year of the grant,
name(s) of the grantee, and cultivation conditions
were entered into the register with dates. All the
later transactions related to the concerned holdings have been added. Each holding is given a
serial number, which is called EMR/GM number.
The studied area was chosen because of its
location in the middle of the area having one of
the oldest sets of land records in the Peninsula.
The earliest set prepared probably from the 1880s
is kept in Arkib Negara Malaysia (National Archives of Malaysia), Kuala Lumpur7). Unfortunately, this set is in a brittle condition, so that the
present research will utilize the second set kept in
the Pejabat Tanah (Land Office) , Kuala Kangsar.
The set is currently in useS). Recording of land
transactions started from July 1906 with the information about the initial grants from 18949 ).
Besides land records, some administration records
* Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Studies.
-
17 -
(ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign
Historical Study on Land Transaction in a Perak Kampong, Malaysia (Mizushima)
as well as the information obtained through house
to house interviews continually conducted between 1991-93 were also utilized.
The area taken up for study was located several
kilometers to the north of Kuala Kangsar town.
It has a triangular shape, surrounded by the Perak
River between the two bridges, the railway, and
Jalan K. This study took up the households
located in the triangle, called hereafter Kampong
J, and their owned land lots located in the triangle
and its adjoining area (See Figure II-I for the
location of Kampong J. and interviewed households, and Figure 11-2 for the kampong/place
names given to the respective lots in the land
records) 10).
The physical setting of the studied area can be
briefly described as follows. Houses run paralIel
to the Perak River. Two important roads pass
through the village. The older is a narrow path
running from south to north parallel to the Perak
River. It was cut through the village in the year
1888, when the Kuala Kangsar - Ipoh route was
opened. A Pontoon type of bridge, floating upon
a series of drums, was built at the north end for
those crossing the river on the way to Ipoh in
1890/91. As the area was often flooded, the bridge
t
Perak River
Railway
Road
to
Kuala Kangsar
to Ipoh
400
(in meter)
Figure II-I.
Location of Houses in Kampong J.
-
18-
t
Perak River
Railway
Road
400
(in meter)
1111.
G::::J
f':':'-:;J
t...:..:J Karai
~ Bendang lit
~Lait
[]IJ
Bendang Kling
[§J
lliJ lit In.a.-Kati I n.a.
§
Lcmbah1.
I CK I Changkat Klubi I KD I Kledan ~ data n.a.
Figure 11-2.
@]
Pay a Bemban
Cherok 1.
Klubi
~
Bukit Surin
[!!!IJ n.a. to 1.
to Kati
Kampong Names in the respective Lots
was very often carried away, too 11 ). Enggor
Bridge, which was named Iskandar Bridge later in
1932, was then constructed in the years 1928- 32
-
at the south end (Perak Administration Report
1932: 60, to be abbreviated hereafter as PAR).
The Kuala Kangsar - Ipoh route was accordingly
19 -
rerouted. Another road (Jalan K.) running from
south-east to north-west, forming the western
edge of the triangle, was opened in 1975. It is a
route leading to Grik and finally to Kota Bharu.
There are a few more small paths in the area. The
railway, which formed the northern boundary of
the studied area, started to be constructed in 1896
(Annual Report on the State of Perak 1896: 1819, to be abbreviated hereafter as ARP). The
railway bridge over Perak River, Victoria Bridge,
was constructed between the years 1897- 1900
(PAR 1899: 9; PAR 1900: 14) 12).
Some of the basic information of all the households interviewed in Kampong J. or household
census is indicated in Table 11-1. The total
number of households in the area was 123 with a
population of 482.
The appearance of the studied kampong may
give a sleepy impression at a first glance, even
though it is located near Kuala Kangsar town.
The impression was partly owing to the fact that
the core of the residents consisted of those already
retired or of the elderly, often solely dependent
upon pension or remittance from their children
working somewhere else. Except for sundry
"kampong works" such as sales of fruits like
durian, mangosteen, or rambutan, machineweeding, or pottery works, hardly any production
activities were observed. Partly due to the prevailing low market price, rubber was not frequently tapped and was left idle. Paddy field, which
once occupied a fairly large proportion, was replaced by fruit trees and completely disappeared
from the village scene 13 ).
What the kampong offered instead was a peaceful accommodation, first to those already retired,
Age
I
80
70·79
60·69
Male
-
50·59
second to those commuting to near-by offices or
factories, and last to those working in the urban
area. The age distribution of the residents clearly
indicates the disproportionally small share of working population. As indicated in Figure 11-3, the
proportion of the population in their 20s to 40s
was low. The number of people living on pension,
on the other hand, was 27 14). The second set of
people, those commuting from the kampong, consisted of factory workers (27) , teachers (9), and
others (see Table 11-2 for the types of occupations) .
Employment opportunities in the vicinity were
rather limited. As indicated in Table 11-3, the
number of factories and of employed workers in
the vicinity were 53 and 3,627 respectively, rather
small figures in the district population of 147,098
in the year 1991.
The limited employment opportunities in the
kampong caused outward movement to the cities
like Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Penang, and others.
Genealogical studies of all the household interviewed indicate that the area has so far sent a
fairly large number of out-migrants. Table 11-4
indicates the place of origin and later (last) domicile of those who were born or once lived in
Kampong J . and in-migrants from other places to
Kampong J. Among the 712 people listed in the
table, those originating from Kampong J. are 513
in total. The rest are mostly in-migrants through
marriage alliances, except a few from India, Pakistan, Ceylon (present Sri Lanka), or Indonesia.
On the other hand it had sent III people to Kuala
Lumpur, 20 to Penang, 57 to Ipoh, 29 to Taiping,
20 to Sg. Siput, besides 196 to some other places in
Perak state (see Table 11-5 for the place of origin
•
Age
80·
70·79
Female
40
30
20
10
Total
7
9
15
11
26
60·69
18
30
48
16
34
50
45
40·49
24
21
30-39
11
22
33
30·39
20·29
26
30
56
10· 19
54
69
123
20-29
0-9
44
47
91
10-19
n.a.
40-49
0-9
50
Female
2
50·59
Total
60
Male
0
0
10
20
30
Population
40
Population
Figure II-3.
Age Distibution
-
20-
50
60
70
210
1
1
272
482
Table 11·1. Household Census
Property
Popub.lion
LandhoJdj~
I
~
To~
F
H.No. M
I
2
7
9
2
I
2
3
S
S
2
3
3
•
I
S
I
6
2
7
2
8
3
9
10
II
I
•
I
•
3
I
7
I
I
I
2
3
I
3
16
I
I
17
3
S
8
J8
2
J
3
J9
3
I
20
I
S
21
I
3
6
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
J
J
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
1 I
J
J
I
J
J
I
J
I
I
34
I
2
3S
3
2
S
1
J
I
J
I
J
I
J
I
J
I
I
I
I
Y I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
J
J
I
I
J
I
I
2
I
J
I
I
2
I
I
I
39
I
6
7
I
Y Y
I
I
'0
.J
4
I
S
I
I
2
6
I
3
I
J
I
I
S3
I
S4
SS
S
S6
S
S7
4
S8
S9
•
I
I
I
3
S2
I
2
I
3
8
I
6
2
6
S
9
3
3
2
3
62
2
2
I
3
•
4
I
I
I
I
Y
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S
I
S
I
2
2
I
2
3.S
I
I
{!.
NOle3
10 I..&nd
aI Ta.!ck
Oendroh
Y
I
•
I
I
I
3
I
3
I
2
I
2
I
3
3
I
S
2
I
I
1.3
3.3
O.S
3.s
3.:5 Rubber land at Gok Alang
I.S
3
2
•
4.S
2
0.75
0.75
3
7 Dusun Wtd at Kg.Seta.
I
I
3
I
• .s
J .S
-4 Rubber at Bdg. Bups (share 6:4). durian
6 Und lIKurn
2
2
S
8
I
2
O.S
I
I
J
I
3
•
2
4Durian
9
o.s
1
2
O.S Formerly saw..
O.S
25 Rented to il Olinesc at: 60 MD/monlh
2S
• •
2
project
6
0
I
I
I
3
2
I
3
I
I
3
I
I
4
I
2
I
I
Y
I
2
I
j
I
I
2
I
I
1 '~"
2 Rubber and Dusun l&nd mixed
I
I
J
"•
"3
Y
I
I
I
~
.~
2
6
I
0
I
I
I.S
2S
.. Land IICltltIcd in S places
O.S
O.S Land located acroS3 Jln Kali. Ngok
I
I
0.2S
0.25 Land along 11n. Kali
l.enan! 10 H.No.S7 (shate 1:1)
•
I
I
I
I .S
I
I
I
I
I
3
2
3
J
0
O.S
I
I.S
S.S
3 I..nd mi"cd
I
not anilable
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
2D
25 RUbt'CT land.11 Olcndroh
S
Datil not ilnilablc
I
I
I
I
I
2
I
J
Oill.l.
J
•
I
60
J
I
I
6J
I
2
I
I
I
37
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
38
I
3
3
J
3
•
•2
I
I
I
I
4
•
I
I
I
2
I
I
I
1 I
I
SI
I
I
I
49
I
1 I
I
SO
I
I
I
2
I
I
I
I
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3
3
I
"€I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
I
6
I
I
I
2
I
2
2
J
I
3
.7
I
3
.ll
J
I
3
.6
I
I
I
2
I
1 I
J
2
I
I
J
I
32
.S
I
I
I
2
I
I
2
2
2
I
3
J
J
1
I
I
J
I
I
I
4
J
I
I
I
43
J
I
I
I
42
J
I
I
I
33
..
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
6
I
I
36
I
I
I
1
I
I
3
I
I
I
'" '" '"
I
I
I
2
2
I
1 1 I
I
29
I
I
I
9
2S
30
I
3S
3
2
5
3
2
I
I
8
I
5
I
I
•
•
•
2
I
I
I
I
2
24
28
I
I
I
•
•
I
I
I
I
IS
31
I
I
J
1:1
I
I
3
26
I
I
2
I.
I
I
I
2
'"
I
2
S
Zl
I
I
I
I
I
2
I
22
I
6
J
13
I
•
I
12
a~!>~
c
~ ~ ~ g ~
ugr.~
L:li8g.~~
~ :r Cl]u..c:t:o:gu;~
! ~ .§ ~ ... ,c ~ ~ u coCi;cc
~ ~ ~
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
Y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
2
I
I
2
S
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
J
J
J
I
I
3
I
I
J
I
I
J
I
I
I
S
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
2
3
I
2
I
I
8
I
I
2
I
J
I
I
J
I
I
J
I
I
J
I
I
I
J
I
J
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
-
21-
2
2
•
4
2 Land at Pulau Lating
10 land mixed
2
S
S
J
S l...ca9cd out to several tenants
S
•
0.2S
•
O.S Land mixcd
0.2S
•
2
2
4
Table II-I.
H.No. M
63
64
3
3
..
,g
~ ~ ~
4 1
5
1 1 1
1 1
NOleS
11
1 1
I
I
1
I
III
11
11
1
2
O.S
3.S
I
1
S
2
2
1.S
4.5 Land
4
3
1 1
6673101
67
2
1
3
1 1
6824611
11 1
11
1
71
3
3
3
3
6
1
70
2
3
n
1
3
4
73
1
74
7:;
2
1
S
3
2
6
5
3
76
..
..
8
n
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
81
82
83
84
4
1
1
3
2
85
86
...
1
6
1
87
88
2
1
3
78
79
BO
2
89
90
91
92
93
1
1
94
3
1
2
2.
9S
96
97
S
3
98
99
100
101
2
3
1
102
103
1
104
2
105
106
1
107
2
2.
3
S
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
1 1
11
III
1
11
1
3
1
1 1
11
I
I
I
11
11
1 I
1
1
11
11
III
1
1
1 1
1 1 1
1
11
III
III
1
1
6
I
1
11
11
1 1 1
1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1
2
1
3
1
1
1 1 1
I
I
1
1 1 1
1
I
1
1
4
6.S
1
I
I
I
I
11
1
3
2.s
2S
I
I
1
11
1
1
3
2
1
I
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
2
2
0.75
0.75
4
1
3
2
1
4
0.2S
22S
2.
2
11
I
I
1 I
1
I
I
I
1
1 1
11
1 1
I
1
3
1
4
1
3
1
2
I
I
1
2
11
1
2
1 1
1
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
11 1
111
1
I
1 1
I
1
1
Y
1
1
11 1
11 1
1 1 I
I
1
11
I
I
1
11
1
1
I
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
11
11
3
I
11
11
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
11
1
3
4
4
1
1
I
1
1
1.5
1.5
2
3
4.5
0.5
3
1
I
1
1
I
0
3
1
0
I
S
1
1
1
'"
1
11
1
1
1 1
1
3
4111
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
I
1 1
1
I
1 1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1111
I
1
1 1
1
1
rent
1
23
1
1 1
1
1
1 I
1
11
1
IS
23
1
1
2
7
8
1 3
1.5
I 1
1 3
1.5
J 32 SS 30 11 126 270 18SS
3
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1
70 73 89 S
1
1
1
92 33
1
2.5
1 ..
-
22-
3
3
20
9 House at Taiping,LandalCGalahand Ribu:
1.5
III
1
1
1'"
111
7 1 1 I
1
4
1.5
1
1 1
1
0
6.5 Land at Otcgar Galah
11 Land at Pulau Lalang
HOU9C awncr No.lIS
4...
II
1 1
1
1
1.5
9 Land parlly leased aut
1
'"
7.5 land u Lubek Otapin, Uluk ~ra.l
S Land ncar OI.endroh Dam, mixed
1
4111111
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
8
1 1 1
1 1
lZ\
S
3
Total 210 m 482 22 S6 87 97 16103 BO 10
Note: y . Exact number not known.
1
4
I
1
Chendroh
0
1
III
at
I Land at Enggor
1
1
115
I
2
1
2
2
1
1
I
11
7
2
122
1
I
1
113
114
121
1
2
1
I
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
117
119
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
9 1 1 1 1
4
1 1 1
118
119
120
1
11
111
116
1
1
108246
109
3
3
6
110
1
1
112
1
11
1
1
1
1
1 111
5 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
I
1 1 1
1
1
S
1 1
5 1
1 I
3
1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1
S
1 1
1
S
2
11
10
1 1 1
2
III
1
S
4
1
1
11
10
4
1
III
11
1
65325111
69
Landholdintz
u iii a ~ :;:
F ToLal
1
2
(continued)
Property
PlJDul.alion
3
2
22 Land includC!ll;u;rcofdurian
2
1
1.5
112S 13.2S
.5
17 House a.t K..L.Kiri
4.5
1
3 La.nd mixed
S.3 321SS
Table 11·2.
Type of job
M
army
artisan (batik)
auditor
bank
bomoh
business
carpenter
2
clerk
2
construction
contractor
2
1
cook
Dalam Utusan (Newspaper)
driver
2
engineer
estate
factory
11
Felcra
Felda
fire station
fishing
2
highway
1
hospital
hotel
JKR
Kampong
27
lawyer
LLN
MAS
mechanic
medicine
meter reader
nurse
nursing home
office
oil
photographer
police
post office
public servant
2
restaurant
sales
SCDC
]
secretary
shop
6
steno
Syarikat Saham Nasional
teacher
4
technician
Telecom
2
tin mine
typist
UKM
village headman
warden
watchman
weeding
1
wireman
worker
.................... .
n.a.
Unemployed/ Unknown
138
Total
210
Occupations
Resident
F sub-total
Non-Resident
F sub-total
1
27
1
1
1
1
5
4
9
M
26
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
16
27
3
4
2
10
3
1
7
6
35
2
5
1
20
6
13
4
3
1
7
6
1
55
2
11
1
2
1
12
39
1
2
2
1
21
1
2
2
2
21
1
2
]
2
16
1
2
2
2
5
1
15
1
7
3
6
]
3
]
3
1
9
3
7
7
]
3
11
1
7
2
10
3
2
1
]
3
1
2
1
16
1
6
15
1
7
3
9
1
7
1
1
21
1
10
2
2
1
Total
27
1
1
9
1
2
2
17
4
2
5
1
9
7
1
82
2
11
1
2
2
2
2
2
60
1
3
1
3
1
1
17
1
8
1
1
15
1
9
4
9
1
1
16
1
1
28
1
13
2
3
1
]
2
6
2
6
1
2
6
1
1
1
537
834
902
1,314
1
1
------_ .. . . _--_ ._- ----.- .. ··················f1 ····
229
272
367
482
240
451
········1····················1·
294
380
Note: Those originated from or once liv ed in Kampong J. are enumerated in the table.
-
23-
Table 11-3.
Number of Workers in the Factories in Kuala Kangsar, Sg. Siput(U), and Grik
Malay
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Type of Factory
textile
textile
cement
furniture
rubber products
plastic products
sawmill
textile
palm-oil
textile
furniture
sawmill
rubber products
printing
rubber products
rubber
rubber
food
ceramics
others
tin products
others
tin products
charcoal
rubber
sawmill
tin products
28 oil
29 furniture
30 sawmill
31 others
32 stationary
33 others
34 sawmill
35 food
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
M
185
46
367
58
107
40
44
12
41
31
32
32
22
12
8
16
16
18
13
8
24
2
14
2
5
I
19
1
12
3
2
6
1
3
5
4
rubber products
furniture
paper
food
sawmill
food
food
sawmill
plastic products
sawmill
others
fertiliser
Chinese
F
385
303
28
39
24
24
23
45
4
58
32
5
19
20
14
11
7
33
9
3
2
4
Indian
F
M
14
20
9
27
12
82
6
4
4
44
47
2
11
50
2
7
7
18
11
23
3
41
4
2
9
2
3
14
5
8
3
14
5
9
4
4
18
4
4
17
2
23
4
2
5
4
7
9
24
2
I
1
5
8
3
2
10
M
3
15
28
16
6
8
7
25
11
16
25
13
20
14
13
6
20
3
5
1
7
3
7
3
3
6
3
3
4
3
5
4
6
2
2
6
4
1
4
1260
1157
5
9
2
3
10
10
5
9
6
5
3
7
5
2
4
9
4
6
4
2
5
4
1
4
3
o
4
2
3
3
3
Total
4
14
o
6
3
4
7
2
2
3
18
12
33
2'1
27
14
1
4
4
Total
F
439
417
40
79
43
71
37
95
9
63
48
34
38
40
26
9
3
2
2
4
2
2
19
12
12
11
6
8
7
9
4
5
8
6
3
2
I
5
brick
food
food
food
sawmill
food
M
219
81
426
109
116
75
97
19
93
33
46
59
43
30
38
35
41
18
20
4
7
4
2
1
2
F
9
9
4
6
I
2
2
2
4
sub-total
Others
F
45
32
6
36
12
28
3
48
5
25
12
10
3
2
8
1
8
4
M
280
284
Source: Pejabat Buruh in Kuala Kangsar, 1994
-
24 -
299
312
34
4
n.a.
1873
o
n.a.
1754
658
498
466
188
159
146
134
114
102
96
94
93
81
70
64
53
53
51
47
31
30
29
27
25
23
22
22
22
22
16
15
14
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
6
4
4
4
n.a.
3627
Table 11·4.
Place of Origin and Later (Last) Domicile
(from)
~
~
~
""
0"
>.
~
"
"
:a" "0 ..c,e.
0
U .5 ".5
~
~
0
(to)
J
J(d)
neighboring villages
Perak
Kuala Lumpur
[poh
Kuala Kangsar
Penang
4
~
..c
:a ~""
E
.!!
~:I
"::! ::!
~
..;
5
3
2
2
~
2
Q.
S
"
:E
.!!
." ..::."" '"s" ..." ..."""" ...... ... '" ~"" " """
:I
.-I
1l
:I
:i
~
7
~
E
.91i vi
1 19 2 2
213
2
~
~ ii ~
2
2
2
~
gt>
;;
la
.-I
2
~
0
g
'a.
§ .;
'"1 '"
2
f-o
6
·c
0
.0
.<:
.2!'
""
~
Total
63
43
486
208
6
3
2
2
Sarawak
America
many places
Total
2 5
7
513
5
2
4
8
2
3 32
2
2
4
2
6 106
3
Notes: I. The table basicall y gives information about the place of origin of the in-migrants to Kampong J.
2. The figures in the screen indicate those who came to stay in Kampong J. for some years but have left
for other places.
Table 11-5. Place of Origin and Last Domicile
(from)
-;;;-
~
a !;!
.~
~
.~
" "
.9
8] ".9"
0
(10)
Perak
Kuala Lumpur
[pob
Taiping
Kuala Kangsar
Penang
S.Sipul
Kedah
Jobor
Selangor
Pahang
SbahAiam
Negeri Sembilan
Kuantan
Sabah
Kelanlan
Perlis
Malacca
Pelaling Jaya
Sarawak
Tcrengganu
Canada
India
Japan
moving aboul
Pakislan
USA
TOlal
.c
.§.
....
..,~
.., ~
III
196
111
57
29
~
§
OIl
Q.
:I
:I
~ ....l~
01
" 01" 01~
~ ~ ::.
J
: Total
201
112
57
29
20
20
20
20
20
20
17
14
14
8
17
13
t
14
8
8
7
6
7
6
5
2
5
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
553
1
1 2
Notes: I . The table basically gives information about the out-migrants born in Kampong J.
2. The figures in the screen indicate those who once stayed in Kampong J. for some years but
have left for other places.
-
25-
563
1
1
712
Table 11-6.
Educational Level
Non-Resident
Resident
Grade
On
0
Off sub-total
12
12
1
15
2
17
2
11
5
3
On
Off sub-total
Total
12
17
5
21
16
26
4
13
17
30
5
5
5
10
49
59
16
17
76
6
14
58
72
77
77
149
5
6
22
27
1
35
6 (skola agama)
6.:t~~()I.a. a~.~.IIl.a ........... ............................... ............................................... .................................L ............... .1...........
18
7
25
3
3
18
8(11)
14
4
4
5
43
30
21
22
29
9(III)
6
12
12
LCE
6
7
7
SRP
10
10
7(1)
IKM
lO(IV)
11 (V)
12(VI)
MCE
SPM
SPMB
SPVM
1
1_-................... ..........................................
8
3
11
8
17
25
6
3
9
3
1
18
19
5
1
28
23
73
18
17
1
2
48
3
14
51
76
8
9
18
1
65
70
89
1
1
2
2
SPM+2 __ ..... .. __ ._-_ ..................................................................... ..............................................................................
..............
.
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
9
2
5
7
8
4
5
9
12
7
18
11(V)+2
11(V)+maktab guru
12(VI)+2
1
12(VI)+2.5
STP
2
4
6
STP+2
1
politeknik
1
1
IKM+2
3
3
ITM
ITM+College
.~r.e::!J.!li.v.e.r~ity.............................. ................................................. .
University
5 -_ ............................
5
. 5
26
25
M.A.
............. ... . .... ......................................................... --.--.- .....1.
Ph.D.
Others & Unknown
Grand Total
147
7
7
2
272
419
29
Note: On - at school, Off - graduated
-
26 -
333
2
362
9
781
and last domicile of out-migrants). Many of the
out-migrants found lowly paid manual jobs in
factories or in offices besides government jobs in
the army, police, and schools (Table 11-2). Those
with higher educational attainments were mostly
employed as professionals (see Table 11-6 for the
educational level of the residents and outmigrants) .
Out-migrants come back, whenever possible, to
their native place (balik kampong) on such occasions as festivals, school holidays, marriages etc.
Though there were many vacant houses, eighteen
in total, they were still maintained for such occasions. Many of those living in urban cities still try
to mix with local folks. Some people actually have
returned to live in their native place after retirement.
Something similar was observed as to the state
of landholding. Many of the out-migrants kept
some land in their native kampong even after they
left for other places years before. They receive a
certain amount of money from the person, usually
a relative, in charge of their land during their
home visits.
III.
Historical Trend in Land Transaction
Though it is not known when the area came to
be settled initially, we do not have to assume that
the original occupants were engaged in settled
agriculture.
As stated above, the colonial
government's main concern was to induce the
moving population to occupy a particular lot as
much as possible. This effort took the form of
land alienation and legal registration of holdings
from the late nineteenth century onwards in the
area.
Serial numbers of lots recorded in the survey
map along the Perak River clearly indicate the
yearly alienation progress. Starting from Kuala
Kangsar town, the serials gradually increase to
the northward along the river. Lots along the
river, where many of the houses were situated
were generally demarcated at right angles to the
river, providing every house with access to the
river for bathing, washing, and ·others.
The alienation process was closely related with
the progress of settled agriculture. Two main
products in settled agriculture have been observed
in the past, i.e. , rice and rubber, in the concerned
area. One earlier administration report noted the
importance of rice cultivation in Kuala Kangsar
as follows:
" . .. The price of rice being exceptionally high
-
the raiats [peasant] in the Kuala Kangsar district
were induced, improvidently, to sell their padi to
traders. Drought and cattle disease following,
and the rule that ladangs [temporary or shifting
cultivation] are prohibited, being enforced, while
the price of rice remained prohibitive for the
poorer class, distress ensued in many of the kampongs .. .. " (PAR 1896: 8)
As indicated, shifting cultivation seemed to
have been prevalent till its ban in the late nineteenth century. The administration report in the
following year noted that a Malay cultivator was
mainly dependent on his rice crop and that one of
the two chief districts where swamp padi was
grown was Kuala Kangsar (PAR 1897: 3) 15). The
evidence from Kampong J. confirms it. Figure
III-I, indicating the "nature of cultivation" at the
time of alienation, clearly shows that many lots in
the center of the triangle were alienated for paddy
cultivation.
On the other hand rubber cultivation started at
the end of nineteenth century and gradually extended its area I6 ). It was the 1905 Perak Administration Report that mentioned confidently the
bright prospect of rubber cultivation for the
Malays. E. W. Birch, the Resident, celebrated the
crop in the following way:
" . . . The rubber boom is still with us ... it is the
dominant topic of conversation. To those who
are interested in the future of the Malay race it is
a matter for satisfaction that rubber-culture has
come to stay, for the art of tapping appeals to the
Malay. He is very neat with his knife: to sit in the
shade and earn a good wage will exactly suit his
temperament. As every acre will give work for
one man we may hope before long to see thousands of Malays congenially employed." (PAR
1905: 18)
The great rubber boom continued. In the year
1908, 8.5 millions of trees were planted in more
than 56,000 acres (PAR 1908: 7) . This brisk state
of agricultural development led Birch to state
that the "kampong Malays have made .. . discoveries ... that most land in Kinta is valuable."
(Administration Report, 1907, in Supplement to
the Perak Government Gazette, 1908: 5), and it
was around this time that the set of EMR/GM
used in this study started registering transactions.
1.
Types of Transaction
There are three main types of land transaction,
namely alienation (grant), transfer (sale), and
transmission (inheritance). In addition, charge,
27-
t
Perak River
Rai lway
Road
400
I
o
I
(in meter)
~
L:.:.iJ
•
Bendang (B)
Paddy (P)
DI
IZ3
Figure III-t.
Kampong (K)
Rubber (R)
Garden (G)
Malay Burial Ground
Land Use at the time of Grant
caveat, lease and other types of transaction which
do not incur changes in ownership are categorized. Before going into the details, we will have a
brief look at the frequency and volume in the
different types of transaction in the period l ?).
The number of original lots granted in the area
and taken up for this study is 295 with the total
alienated extent of 482.65 acres. The abstract
number of transacted cases and their extents in
the respective categories are indicated in Table
III-I, and the yearly change is indicated in Table
III-2.
-28 -
Table 111·1.
Summary of Land Transaction in Kampong J.
Types of Transaction
Grant
Sub-Total
Transmission
Other Conditions
Caveat
Notice of Sale
Subject to Charge
Subject to Lease
Case
399
Acreage
482.65
900
70
2
446.30
33.54
4.32
1.93
0.09
1357
37
9
8
6
1185.83
29.74
8.50
23.03
0.28
1
8
2.09
9.84
Sub-Total
Transfer
Caveat
Notice of Sale
SUbject to Charge
SUbject to Lease
Sub-Total
Acquired by the State
Returned to the State
Sub-Total
Caveat
Transaction without Change
Charge
in Ownership
Lease
Lease & Notice of Sale
Notice of Sale
Prohibitory Order
Subject to Charge
Subject to Lease
Transfer of Charge
Transmission of Charge
n.a.
Sub-Total
Data not available (n.a.)
Total
The yearly change of transactions in the past
gives some general trends. First we will study
grants, in which a total of 399 lots (or parts
thereof which we will term as "case" hereafter)
with the extent of 482.65 acres have been granted.
Most of the lands located in the area were alienated by 1894 or so (see Figure 111-2 for the
progress ofland grant in the studied area). Since
then we can observe three peak periods, first in
1905-1909, second in 1912- 1916, and last in the
early 1920s (see Figure 111-3 for the yearly change
of land grant since 1895).
In the case ofland transfer, 1,417 cases with the
extent of 1,247.37 acres have been totally trans-
59
167
19
5
6
2
4
2
3
Case
Acreage
399
482.65
974
486.19
1417
1247.37
9
11.94
269
38
3106
444.28
14.54
2686.97
38.02
382.21
4.02
0.01
4.76
3.50
5.33
0.56
0.66
5.20
0.00
ferred. The yearly change, as indicated in Figure
111-4, shows that the volume of transaction decreased considerably in the post-war period compared with the pre-war period, though the frequency was constant throughout.
Transmission of land shows a somewhat similar
feature. In total, 974 cases with an acreage of
486.19 have been transmitted in the area. As
indicated in Figure 111-5, the volume of transaction was high in the late 1920s, late 1930s, postwar years, and 1980s. The number of cases has
been constant till the early 1980s when we can
observe a conspicuous increase.
The last but important type of transaction is a
29-
Table 111-2.
Year
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
Grant
Case Acreage
227 229.68
13
7.09
23
16.69
1
0.53
1.75
1
14
15
6
3
3
3.03
12.45
31.34
11.93
4.96
7.07
6
18
11
1.71
37.02
25.96
16
3
31.62
6.51
10
20.33
Transfer
Case Acreage
1
4
4
9
9
12
20
13
4
7
17
8
7
2
3
1
3.75
3.49
1.14
1.25
Yearly Change of Land Transaction
11
17
23
37
25
21
26
16
21
16
38
27
17
14
29
30
25
34
19
Transmission
Case Acreage
1.18
1.64
1.54
6.01
8.71
18.97
18.11
31.23
51.53
25.68
8.51
20.66
29.66
12.14
1.09
13.62
23.08
18.84
35.67
49 .62
21.00
27.43
31.20
15.86
18.30
18.12
18.98
24.63
9.86
13.25
17.80
19.04
14.09
45.67
21.68
2
4.13
1.28
12
1
2
4
7
8
2
1
3
8
39
13
26
6
28
6
5
16
1
4
5
10
27
9
28
-
30-
0.91
12.14
2.06
1.86
3.92
5.89
5.39
1.94
1.44
0.70
4.09
20.19
15.46
19.70
5.06
14.02
4.69
0.62
4.00
3.34
0.75
3.04
9.08
15.92
4.74
17.75
0.30
Charge
Case Acreage
4
3
15
16
7
12
9
8
10
12
8
1.44
7.59
3.50
34.22
40.03
26.51
33.24
26.45
21.08
32.61
38.33
18.29
2
6.01
7
6
1
2
1
2
8.89
7.71
0.34
3.01
2.38
1.84
2
4.54
6
4
2
14.83
9.88
4.54
8.28
Trs+ Trm +Charge
Case
Acreage
1
2
10
7
24
26
19
33
34
13
19
33
23
9
11
12
20
31
83
44
48
34
45
29
21
54
30
21
25
43
59
35
62
20
1.18
1.64
2.98
17.73
12.21
53.19
59.43
57.74
85.68
64.28
31.65
55.14
71.90
36.32
6.48
21.57
24.51
19.54
39.76
78.70
44.16
47.47
39.27
32.26
24.83
18.73
22.98
32.52
10.61
31.12
36.75
39.50
27.11
63.41
21.98
Table 111-2.
Year
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
n.a.
Total
Grant
Case Acreage
2
0.90
3.14
Transfer
Case Acreage
30
26.44
40
36.10
8.33
11
10
6
18
14
23
16
32
15
36
9
11
15
25
18
24
5
24
35
27
15
32
24
11
32
11
12
23
27
13
18
13
13
11
20
13
9
24
23
6
8
14
10
8
12
5
15
399
18.65
482.65
1417
(continued)
Transmission
Case Acreage
2
1.31
19
4.52
12
12.06
10.05
6.16
23.44
10.02
9.01
5.06
16.95
10.70
18.46
11.88
11.90
12.20
17.16
7.28
15.60
4.80
19.24
21.41
24.88
13.69
18.22
13.85
8.30
15.99
8.91
8.22
13.31
11.27
9.04
11.48
6.82
5.88
7.45
11.15
6.61
1.91
11.59
8.59
1.83
4.11
4.43
6.36
6.37
7.67
2.39
0.31
0.17
1247.37
16
11
15
9
12
26
46
1
10
12
12
19
4
8
21
11
6
8
34
11
4
6
6
15
1
8
11
12
13
40
8
39
8
42
28
26
27
11.50
5.73
14.53
6.28
6.76
16.47
12.88
0.41
2.95
6.64
8.85
9.63
1.41
2.81
10.64
5.19
2.68
4.08
1.40
17.50
2.95
2.69
5.62
4.95
0.30
3.73
11.51
4.29
1.17
1.03
3.18
5.80
0.01
0.91
9.86
10.34
4.95
7.69
5.44
11.08
3.61
8.44
8.21
8.66
9.16
974
486.19
2
25
2
13
16
13
3
5
-
31 -
Charge
Case Acreage
0.05
1.00
1.50
1
4
0.14
5.50
3
1.78
2
4
4.78
4.13
2.78
2
3
2
0.78
1.47
2.43
0.35
167 382.21
Trs+ Trm+Charge
Case
Acreage
32
27.75
59
40.62
23
20.39
26
17
33
23
35
42
78
16
46
21
23
34
29
26
45
16
31
43
29
40
34
37
27
45
14
18
57
39
17
24
20
32
12
31
24
23
41
63
15
47
24
55
38
38
32
1
2
2558
21.56
11.89
37.97
16.30
15.77
21.53
29.83
1Ll1
21.41
18.52
20.75
21.84
18.57
10.09
26.24
9.99
21.97
25.49
26.27
31.18
21.16
16.54
13.91
20.94
9.21
12.95
24.82
17.06
10.21
12.51
10.15
17.18
7.46
13.83
16.47
17.03
20.66
16.28
10.04
15.19
8.82
16.27
17.02
16.33
11.55
0.31
0.52
2115.76
b~K)
Perak River
1-.::::.1
Railway
El
Road
400
(in meter)
~ -1894
0
E3 1895 -1899 l3J
.
1900 - 1909
D
1910 - 1919
1920 - 1929
1930 -
Figure 111·2. Progress of Land Grant
charge (mortgage), which is closely related to
rural indebtedness_ As shown in Figure III -6,
most of the charge cases were observed in the
191Os_ A total of 167 cases with the extent of
382.21 acres belonged to this category of
transaction 18).
-
If we exclude the cases of land grants, which
ended in the early 1920s, in order to assess the
feature of yearly transaction in the past, the result
becomes as indicated in Figure 111-7. It is apparent that the volume of post-war transaction fell
to nearly half of the pre-war level. In contrast,
32 -
40
30
20
10
Note: Grants in 1894 is not included in the figure.
Year
Figure 111-3.
Yearly Change of Land Grant
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
1984
Year
Figure 111-4.
Yearly Change of Land Transfer
-
33 -
Year
Figure 111-5.
Yearly Change of Land Transmission
Year
Figure 111-6.
Yearly Change of Charge
-
34 -
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
Year
Figure III-7. Yearly Change of Land Transaction (Transfer + Transmisson + Charge)
the frequency remained constant throughout the
period.
2.
Transaction between Malays and non-Malays
As was indicated in Figure 111-2, the major part
of the studied area was granted in the 1890s,
mostly by 1894. This period belonged to the years
when land administration in Perak was being reorganized. The first stage of the grants can,
therefore, be considered not as new grants but the
legal registration of pre-existing holdings 19). Lots
granted in the early years correspond to the present habitation area. Some adjoining lots were
granted in the 1900s, especially in the years 1905
-07. On the other hand those in the inner parts
(north-west of the triangle) were in many cases
granted later in the 1910s and 1920s. Alienation
in the area ended with few isolated cases by 1923.
In other words the chance of extending one's
holding through alienation disappeared around
this time 20 ).
From the very beginning Malay peasants were
idealized as small holders and were oriented to
become as such. Swettenham mentioned in 1894
that one acre of good rice-land would give enough
of the staple food to support a Malay family of
-
four persons for a year, that four acres of any land
was as much as one family was able to deal with
without hired labor, and that an immense number
of the holdings in the Kuala Kangsar district were
under one acre (Swettenham 1894: 8) . The same
situation can be observed by the findings in the
area (see Table 111-3 for the number of lots and
acreage held by each landholder at the time of
grant). Out of 321 landholders who were granted
some land, all except eleven acquired either one
or two lots only. In the same way the largest
extent granted to a landholder was 8.28 acres, the
majority less than four acres. The Government's
intention to maintain Malay peasants as small
holders was clearly expressed here so far as land
alienation was concerned.
In 1907 one case ofland transfer was recorded,
followed by another transfer in the next year.
From around this time we can observe a gradual
increase in charge cases, with which Chettiyars,
the money-lending community originating from
South India, were deeply involved. The first case
of charge was recorded in 1909, when a lot held
jointly by two Malay women (sisters) was charged by a Chettiyar. The number of all types of
transactions (excluding grants) gradually increased in the following years, as did the charges
35-
Table 111-3.
Number of Lots and Extent allotted to each Landholder at the time of Grant
Acreage
Lots
0
1
2
3
4
5
No. of Landholders
257
53
9
1
1
6
7
8
9
Total
from
0
1
2
3
4
5
to
1
2
3
4
5
6
No. of Landholders
154
82
48
23
6
7
8
9
7
8
9
10
3
1
2
7
1
321
321
Notes: I . Total number of land lots or parts thereof alienated - 399
2. Total acreage - 482.65 acs.
by Chettiyars. The year 1910 saw four charge
cases by Chettiyars out of ten cases of total transactions (i.e. transfer, transmission, and charge).
Next year saw the first case of non-Malays acquiring lots in the area. That is, two Chinese obtained
three lands from three Malays.
A new and distinctive phenomenon could be
further observed in 1912. First, the number of
transactions including charge cases jumped.
Second, the first case of land grant to non-Malays
was observed, i.e. seven lots were granted to seven
Indians2ll . Third, six out of these seven were
charged by the Chettiyars within a few months
after grant and the remaining one in the next year.
Besides, five out of these seven were transferred to
others.
The same feature continued in the next year. In
1913 six lots were newly granted to non-Malays,
three to six Chettiyars and the rest to the Chinese.
These new lots were again frequently transferred
within a short period after grant. That is, one of
the Chettiyars' lots was transferred to another
Indian in the same year, the rest within a year or
two. The lots granted to the Chinese were either
transferred to other Chinese or charged by the
Chettiyars in the same way. Chettiyars were
involved with all the charge cases, fourteen in
total.
This evidence implies a new development in the
studied area. That is, land acquired mortgage
value around this time, so that non-Malay interests started to penetrate into the adjoining area of
the established Malay kampongs. The short
-
period between grant and charge, or the quick
transfer to others, indicates that some non-Malays
obtained land grants just to cash in money by
mortgaging them to the Chettiyars22).
The same trend can be observed in the yearly
change of land transfer during the period. As was
indicated in Figure 111-4, the number of transfer
cases as well as transferred extent increased greatly between 1910 and 1915.
This new trend was apparently caused by the
rubber boom of 1908-1912 for war purposes23 ).
The Administrative Report of 1912 noted that
"rubber is being planted at the present time by
four fifths of the Malay agriculturists." (PAR
1912: 7) The rubber boom created a situation in
1913 to the extent that the "demand for small
holdings was as brisk as ever." (PAR 1913: 7)
Another important motive for non-Malays to
eagerly obtain land grants at this stage must have
been anxiety about the preparation of new regulation, i.e. the Malay Reservations Enactment. The
regulation aimed at imposing restriction on land
transfer from Malays to non-Malays and had been
on the table for discussion since 1908 (Ghee 1977:
107-112). Perak as a whole had seen a considerable number of Malay to non-Malay land
transfers by this time. The first account regarding
Malay to non-Malay land transfer appeared in the
Administration Report of 1911. In that year 213
lots were transferred from non-Malays to Malays
whereas as many as 754 lots were transferred
from Malays to non-Malays. According to the
same report, "it is feared that in many instances
36-
the mushrooming of rubber plantations in the
Peninsula. It has been argued that land transfer
from Malay peasants to European estates became
apparent in many parts of the Peninsula.
It is to be noted however that transfer from
Malays to non-Malays had rarely occurred even
in the years previous to the Enactment so far as
the studied area was concerned. Only two cases
of such transfer actually occurred between the
years of 1906 and 1991 25 ). What was conspicuous
instead was the frequent charges by Chettiyars. It
was the Chettiyar money-lenders who posed the
threat to the kampong through loan
transactions 26 ) . The Administration Report for
Perak noted in 1913 that the number of new
charges registered against native holdings in
Kuala Kangsar area increased from 781 to 1,070
and that the applications for foreclosure doubled,
indicating widespread indebtedness of the
peasantry (PAR 1913: 7).
As is clearly known by now, the Chettiyar
community was the main actor in these transactions. Out of 167 charge cases transacted so far in
the studied area, 126 were by them (see Table III4). "Chettiyar" ("Chetti" plus honorific/plural
suffix "-ar") is the caste title generally used for
trading communities in Tamil Nadu, India. The
particular community functioning as moneylender in Malaysia and other Asian countries is
the Nattukottai Chettiyar, originated from Nattukottai or Chettinad located in the former princely
state of Pudukottai. With the expansion of
British colonial interests from India to South-east
Asia, they also intruded to the colonized area.
Usually Chettiyars' firms in their home country or
in the big cities in the Peninsula send an agent for
three years with some capital, and the latter independently conducts the business in his destination.
The total number of Chettiyars appearing in the
they [Malays who sold lots] became divorced
from the land-holding classes and became labourers, either on the lands of others as agriculturists,
or by seeking employment in pursuits of other
natures." (PAR 1911: 11) It was also mentioned
that "legislation is contemplated which will prevent the sale of purely Malay holdings to others
than people of the Malay race and religion . ..
Failing some such protective measure, the ultimate destruction of the Malay land-owner would
seem to be a matter only of years." (PAR 1911:
11)
The situation, as feared by the authorities, further deteriorated in the following years. In the
year 1912, a total of 961 lots were transferred
from Malays to non-Malays. In 1913, as many as
1,654 lots passed into the hands of non-Malays in
Perak. The transfer in the opposite direction was
220 in 1912 and 348 in 1913 respectively (PAR
1912: 10; PAR 1913: 12) .
Under such a situation the Malay Reservations
Enactment was passed in the Federal Council in
November 1913. The law restricted land transfer
from Malays to non-Malays within the Reserve
Land. Since then a considerable area has been
gazetted as Malay Reserve Land, including the
studied area24 ) . Once gazetted, non-Malays were
never to be registered as landholders, except for
those lands possessed by non-Malays previous to
the Enactment. Though we can find one new
grant to a non-Malay (Chinese) in the year 1915,
new land acquisition by non-Malays was virtually
halted by the Enactment.
Frequent land transfer from the Malay peasants to European estates was the initial motive for
the new Enactment and one of its objectives was
to restrain the process (Voon 1976: 515, 517;
Ghee 1977: 106). The drastic expansion of rubber
cultivation from the beginning of this century saw
Table 111-4.
Charge Cases among Different Communities/Agencies
(from)
(to)
Chettiyar
Chettiyar
Chinese
Indian
Malay
n.a.
Total
14
47
28
32
5
126
Bank
10
10
Gov!. Agencies
10
10
8
1
6
6
6
1
Indian
4
Chinese
5
4
Co-operative Society
Malay
Total
56
14
-
37 -
32
60
5
167
EMR in the studied area was as many as sixty, a
fairly large number. They did not necessarily
conduct business jointly, and very often transacted among themselves 27 ). Previous to the establishment of the modern banking system 28 ), the
local people had to depend solely and heavily
upon Chettiyars for ready cash 29). Even after the
establishment of banks and other facilities, formal
and troublesome procedures to be cleared before
obtaining loans naturally kept customers away
from them 30).
Records on Kuala Kangsar shop lots indicate
the Chettiyars' involvement with the financing of
town formation from the very early stage. Some
of their names were recorded among the original
holders of the oldest shop lots in the town starting
to be built from 1904 onwards. The first case of
mortgage by them occurred there in the late
I 920s. Interviews with one of the old residents
revealed that there had been twelve Chettiyars'
shops in the town before the war. Each of the
shops had a few Chettiyars operating jointly or
separately. The total number of Chettiyars doing
business just before the Japanese Occupation
Period was said to be twenty-eight3 !).
To meet expenses such as marriage ceremony,
pilgrimage, gambling, and, in some cases, opium,
Malays as well as non-Malays resorted to the
Chettiyars' finance by mortgaging their land. The
ever fluctuating rubber price linked to the world
market could often result in the transfer of mortgaged property. Their interest rate was reported to
be from 10 to 36 per cent per annum or more
(Ghee 1977: 84) . According to two elderly
Malays in the town, the interest rate was as high
as twenty percent per month, which seems to be
somewhat unrealistic. As the Malays used to raise
short term loan frequently and pay the interest
each time, they may not have been very conscious
of the accurate interest rate 32 ). Anyhow the conspicuous increase of charge cases by the Chettiyars must have been the driving force for the
Enactment.
It is to be noted that the Malay Reservations
Enactment of 1913 did not prohibit non-Malays,
including Chettiyars, from holding land as security for mortgage33) . How did it affect the studied
area? It has been argued that due to this rule or
loophole of the Enactment, or rather to say, despite the Enactment, mortgage cases continued to
be abundant even after 1913, leading the colonial
government finally to insert a clause to prohibit all
types of disposal of Malay holding to non-Malays
by the revision of the Enactment in 1933 (Voon
1977: 113; Kratoska 1985: 36) . Evidence from
the studied area, however, implies a somewhat different situation. As Malay to non-Malay land transfer was exceptional throughout the period in the
area, we will study this issue by investigating
charge cases.
The number of charge cases against Malay holdings by Chettiyars was still frequent in the following year of Enactment or 1914, when the Kuala
Kangsar area was gazetted as Malay Reserve
(Ghee 1977: 113). The number, however, conspicuously decreased from 1915 onwards. The
decrease was certainly not caused by devaluation
of land price, which actually showed an upward
trend. The rubber boom caused by World War I
gave high mortgage value to the land, and the
demand for rubber land even increased towards
the end of 1915 (PAR 1915: 9). The year 1916
saw "the overwhelming demand for land for
rubber planting. " (PAR 1916: 3) Charge cases
upon the lots held by non-Malays, on the other
hand, did not show any significant decrease till the
early 1920s. In a word the decrease of the charge
cases in the Malay Reserve Land should be simply
interpreted as the actual outcome of the Enactment.
Malay - non-Malay land transactions thus virtually ceased in the mid-19 lOs so far as the studied
area was concerned, though several isolated
charge cases against Malays by Chettiyars could
be observed till the last one registered in 1931 34 ).
It may be further added that the number of Malay
to non-Malay transfers greatly decreased between
the pre-Enactment and post-Enactment periods in
Perak as a whole. The number of such cases fell
from 1654 to 297 between the years of 1913 and
1923 (PAR 1913 : 12; PAR 1924: 4) . From this
evidence we may safely conclude that the Enactment deprived the Malay Reserve land of mortgage value to non-Malays. As a result, it prevented charges by the Chettiyars3S ) . On the other
hand the land held by the Chinese or Indians still
continued to be charged by the Chettiyars, indicating the land not classified as Malay Reserve
enjoyed consistent mortgage value even after the
Enactment in the vicinity36).
The same situation continued for some years till
1921 , when the number of fresh charges decreased
all of a sudden even for non-Malays. Though the
older charges from previous years continued for
some more years, the number of fresh charges
became far less in the 1920s. The rubber slump
after World War I and the resultant regulation
imposed by the Stevenson Committee in 1921 was
38 -
the main reason for the decrease. The same factor
affected the land transfer in the area to a certain
extent in the years 1920-22. It, however, recovered quickly and has became ever more frequent
since then as indicated in Figure 111-4. The
situation of charge, on the other hand, was quite
otherwise. Though the years of 1926 and 1927 saw
several charge cases after the improvement of the
rubber price in the year 1925 (PAR 1925: 6- 7),
they became exceptional and were observed only
in the lots held by some Chinese.
There are some other notable features of land
transactions in the 1920s. They were; 1. the
constant land transactions in the respective
communities 37 ), 2. the increased number of subdivision of holdings, and 3. land transfers from
the Chinese to the Chettiyars. The first two
features can be interpreted as a reflection of the
disappearance of unoccupied land by the early
1920s. The shortage of arable land must have
been acutely felt especially among Malays, whose
main income came from land. The lack of primogeniture rule in Islamic inheritance law caused
sub-divisions of inherited property, leading to
minimization of holdings. The optimum size of
holding could not be supplemented through fresh
grants by this time. The solution had to be sought
either in buying land at the cost of other villagers
or leaving the kampong to seek other opportunities. The land transfer from the Chinese to the
Chettiyars must be the reflection of the rubber
slump in the period.
The Stevenson Restriction Scheme ended in
November 1928, and the year 1929 saw a nearly
fifty percent increase in rubber exports. The
boom, however, was very short-lived. Soon the
area had to experience the Great Depression.
Low rubber prices started to prevail from 1929
onwards, but the effects were somewhat different
between the large scale estates and the smallholders. The Administration Report of 1931
noted that "it is satisfactory to be able to report
that there were but few cases of serious hardships
among small-holders" in contrast to a considerable number of repatriations for Chinese and Tamil
labourers from the district (PAR 1931: 32,48) .
The following year saw eighty to ninety percent of
small holdings (under 100 acres) still being
tapped, whereas 6.1 percent of estates of 100 acres
and over entirely ceased operation (PAR 1932:
10).
The effect of the Great Depression can, thus, be
considered rather mild for the small holders,
which can be observed in the record of land
-
transactions in the studied area. The features of
transaction in the 1930s were basically the same as
in the previous decade as observed in Figure 111-7.
There was no distinguishable change in land transactions in the period. The charge cases were
found exclusively among the Chettiyars. Though
there were a few exceptional charges of the Chinese or Malays by the Chettiyars, they were very
limited in number.
Another contributing factor preventing land
transfer among the small holders was the Small
Holders (Restriction of Sale) Enactment in 1932.
The year 1932 was when the situation greatly
deteriorated compared with previous years. This
Enactment seemed to have worked effectively in
controlling land transfer from small farmers in
the depression period. According to the 1932
Administration Report, the "creditors were inclined to treat their debtors with more 'sweet
reasonableness' than might have been expected, as
they knew that they could not pay much more
than interest. It is possible that the Small Holders
(Restriction of Sale) Enactment was responsible
for the growth of this attitude." (PAR 1932: 59)
The Depression ended in 1933 when the rubber
market improved. In the same year the revision of
the Malay Reservations Enactment was enforced,
which did not affect the area very much. The
frequent foreclosures of mortgaged land in other
parts of the Peninsula in the post-Depression
years were not observed in this area. On the other
hand the Malays dominated land transactions.
Sub-divisions through inheritance conspicuously
increased among them.
The same trend has not changed much since
then to the present. More and more sub-divisions
have occurred to the lots held by Malays, which
has produced very complicated, and in other
words very unrealistic, sub-divisional proportions.
Land possessed by the Chettiyars was very often
transacted among themselves, but gradually transferred to Malays and the Chinese, mainly to the
former. Their holding finally disappeared from
the studied area in the year 1969. Some lots
possessed by the Chinese were also transferred to
Malays in the pre-war years.
The overall result of the land transactions
among the different communities was as follows.
Of those lots originally granted to, possessed by,
or charged by non-Malays, numbering forty-four
in total, only seven lots remained in their hands.
As to the originally granted lots, Indians and
Chettiyars could maintain only one lot while
losing ten. In contrast the Chinese could some39-
Table 111-5.
Year
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
(from)
Female F&M
Male
3.89 .
1.86
0.70
2.68
3.86
2.69
2.58
6.36
4.74
9.01
0.30
Others
(in acs.)
Total
4.13
4.13
0.70
0.75
5.72
2.25
13.15
1.13
9.11
2.44
0.62
1.97
Yearly Change of Land Transmission by Sex
1.28
1.28
0.91
8.25
2.06
0.91
12.14
2.06
1.86
3.92
5.89
5.39
1.94
1.44
0.70
4.09
20.19
15.46
19.70
5.06
14.02
4.69
0.62
4.00
3.34
0.75
3.04
9.08
15.92
4.74
17.75
0.30
3.22
3.21
1.53
1.94
1.44
0.53
3.34
14.47
13.21
6.02
3.93
4.91
2.26
2.03
3.34
0.75
0.35
6.50
9.55
8.74
3.28
1.09
1.31
1.24
10.96
1.31
4.52
12.06
5.61
4.48
5.60
0.55
3.06
5.89
1.25
8.93
5.73
3.69
11.50
5.73
14.53
6.28
6.76
-40 -
Year
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
(to)
Female
F&M
Male
Others
4.13
4.13
1.28
1.28
0.91
2.79
2.06
9.35
1.29
0.65
4.39
1.86
2.63
5.24
1.00
1.94
1.44
0.23
2.28
5.75
4.71
3.45
0.94
6.52
3.62
0.62
1.65
3.34
0.75
0.42
6.62
9.22
2.15
7.15
0.30
(in acs.)
Total
2.22
0.47
1.81
14.44
10.75
14.04
3.92
7.51
1.07
2.35
0.72
2.62
2.46
6.69
2.59
9.88
0.20
0.91
12.14
2.06
1.86
3.92
5.89
5.39
1.94
1.44
0.70
4.09
20.19
15.46
19.70
5.06
14.02
4.69
0.62
4.00
3.34
0.75
3.04
9.08
15.92
4.74
17.75
0.30
0.66
1.95
2.15
0.66
2.56
9.91
1.31
4.52
12.06
0.76
4.11
0.61
2.22
10.75
1.63
13.92
4.06
6.76
11.50
5.73
14.53
6.28
6.76
Table 111·5.
Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
n.a.
Total
(from)
Female F & M
7.96
8.13
0.41
1.15
3.50
4.09
4.90
1.16
1.96
0.91
2.66
0.09
1.59
0.58
2.40
0.39
3.09
3.92
0.10
3.73
4.34
0.57
0.38
0.98
1.74
2.37
0.01
Male
1.40
1.00
1.36
3.14
4.76
3.34
0.25
0.84
9.73
2.53
2.59
2.49
0.81
15.10
2.95
2.30
2.53
1.03
0.19
0.01
6.17
3.72
0.78
0.05
1.44
3.42
0.53
4.71
1.58
4.95
3.71
0.91
9.65
7.91
0.39
3.03
4.86
11.08
3.08
3.73
6.63
3.71
5.45
195.35
3.37 287.46
0.21
2.44
4.55
4.66
0.58
(in acs.)
Others Total
8.51
4.75
0.44
(continued)
0.01
Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
16.47
12.88
0.41
2.95
6.64
8.85
9.63
1.41
2.81
10.64
5.19
2.68
4.08
1.40
17.50
2.95
2.69
5.62
4.95
0.30
3.73
11.51
4.29
1.17
1.03
3.1 8
5.80
0.01
0.91
9.86
10.34
4.95
7.69
5.44
11.08
3.6]
8.44
8.21
8.66
9.16
1990
1991
1992
n.a.
Total
486.19
-
41 -
(to)
Female
7.94
4.69
0.41
2.29
0.81
0.66
5.25
1.29
2.53
6.98
0.53
2.61
1.24
0.81
3.27
2.17
0.27
3.32
1.21
F& M
Male
8.53
8.18
0.56
2.64
3.15
2.61
4.74
0.68
4.10
0.58
7.08
5.77
5.56
5.14
0.66
5.84
8.19
4.39
0.13
0.28
3.64
4.66
0.07
2.31
0.58
14.23
0.78
2.42
2.30
3.74
0.11
2.95
6.94
3.41
0.77
0.91
0.71
1.08
0.01
0.34
7.21
7.19
2.33
2.94
4.37
6.98
3.03
1.36
2.44
3.10
4.02
191.47
3.13 290.13
0.19
0.78
4.57
0.76
0.20
0.12
2.47
4.72
Others
0.01
0.53
0.12
0.19
0.01
0.39
1.46
(in acs.)
Total
16.47
12.88
0.41
2.95
6.64
8.85
9.63
1.41
2.81
10.64
5.19
2.68
4.08
1.40
17.50
2.95
2.69
5.62
4.95
0.30
3.73
11.51
4.29
1.17
1.03
3.18
5.80
0.01
0.91
9.86
10.34
4.95
7.69
5.44
11.08
3.61
8.44
8.21
8.66
9.16
486.19
Table 111-6.
1.64
1.54
4.28
2.21
18.97
9.74
31.23
48.65
20.70
8.51
11.44
27.33
11.19
1.09
8.96
20.70
10.63
30.87
39 .68
11.52
17.31
21.59
11.88
10.99
16.01
8.33
18.37
7.98
6.44
8.61
10.40
5.07
41.40
19.93
(in acs.)
Total
1.18
1.64
1.54
6.01
8.71
18.97
18.11
31.23
51.53
25.68
8.51
20.66
29 .66
12.14
1.09
13.62
23.08
18.84
35.67
49.62
21.00
27.43
2.06
31.20
15.86
18.30
18.12
18.98
24.63
9.86
13.25
17.80
19.04
14.09
45.67
21.68
14.67
15.67
7.25
26.44
36.10
8.33
3.85
2.78
14.58
3.47
2.84
10.05
6.16
23.44
10.02
9.01
(from)
Year
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
Female F & M
1.18
1.73
6.49
5.60
2.78
2.88
4.98
9.23
2.32
.0.95
4.66
1.09
8.21
4.80
6.22
9.48
10.12
7.55
3.98
7.30
2. 11
6.97
6.26
1.87
6.82
9.18
8.63
9.03
3.96
1.75
11.04
19.78
1.08
6.20
3.38
7.11
6.15
5.12
1.28
3.72
3.68
0.30
0.72
0.66
0.41
1.05
Yearly Change of Land Transfer by Sex
Male Others
1.75
-42 -
Year
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
(to)
Female F &M
4.69
1.30
3.00
7.22
12.94
7.04
9.19
3.76
6.31
1.58
15.49
4.91
2.63
2.80
8.88
9.96
7.34
11.72
7.56
4.57
8.71
15.14
14.15
28.94
44.91
20.40
7.18
11.44
28.33
4.39
1.09
13.62
18.39
17.55
32.67
42.40
8.06
20.39
22.01
12.10
11.99
16.54
3.49
19.72
7.23
10.45
8.92
9.08
6.76
33.94
14.12
(in acs.)
Total
1.18
1.64
1.54
6.01
8.71
18.97
18.11
31.23
51.53
25.68
8.51
20.66
29.66
12.14
1.09
13.62
23.08
18.84
35.67
49.62
21.00
27.43
31.20
15.86
18.30
18.12
18.98
24.63
9.86
13.25
17.80
19.04
14.09
45.67
21.68
8.94
20.91
3.24
17.50
15.19
5.08
26.44
36.10
8.33
1.10
1.41
6.16
4.98
3.59
8.96
4.75
17.28
5.04
5.42
10.05
6.16
23.44
10.02
9.01
1.54
1.44
3.83
1.19
2.28
6.61
5.28
1.33
9.23
1.33
7.75
2.78
Male Others
1.18
1.64
Table 111·6.
Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
n.a.
Total
(from)
Female F & M
3.26
6.48
0.22
2.08
0.66
6.86
0.44
1.86
3.31
2.54
2.13
8.34
3.13
7.09
7.68
0.84
9.88
4.38
4.09
3.95
6.24
7.45
1.98
5.64
0.89
1.88
3.36
7.56
1.98
1.29
1.85
2.88
3.53
7.55
4.24
1.43
10.14
5.79
1.36
3.71
3.71
0.42
3.61
3.94
1.90
0.17
381.53
0.50
1.03
1.28
24.81
Male Others
1.80
10.25
7.97
11.15
10.01
8.59
7.54
5.69
0.19
7.08
4.80
9.35
17.03
20.35
0.44
9.74
11.98
6.39
6.32
9.31
0.53
8.02
5.30
9.95
3.71
6.87
0.19
10.19
3.70
3.01
3.92
3.60
2.37
0.48
1.07
0.38
2.80
0.08
0.38
0.40
0.73
5.94
2.77
3.73
0.49
0.31
835.30
5.73
(continued)
(in acs.)
Total
5.06
16.95
10.70
18.46
11.88
11.90
12.20
17.16
7.28
15.60
4.80
19.24
21.41
24.88
13.69
18.22
13.85
8.30
15.99
8.91
8.22
13.31
11.27
9.04
11.48
6.82
5.88
7.45
11.15
6.61
1.91
11.59
8.59
1.83
4.11
4.43
6.36
6.37
7.67
2.39
0.31
0.17
1247.37
- 43 -
Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
n.a.
Total
(to)
Female F & M
3.05
3.62
3.14
10.89
2.13
7.29
4.19
8.61
5.33
4.33
3.72
13.96
8.03
0.44
5.68
3.96
7.63
3.39
0.63
8.01
4.68
4.09
6.20
7.95
1.64
3.88
6.01
0.41
6.06
3.30
1.38
1.72
5.89
5.32
0.87
2.71
3.90
4.12
3.39
4.53
1.31
0.31
0.17
407.82
3.21
(in acs.)
Total
5.06
16.95
10.70
18.46
11.88
11.90
12.20
17.16
7.28
15.60
4.80
19.24
21.41
24.88
13.69
18.22
13.85
8.30
15.99
8.91
8.22
13.31
11.27
9.04
11.48
6.82
5.88
7.45
11.15
6.61
1.91
11.59
8.59
1.83
4.11
4.43
6.36
6.37
7.67
2.39
0.31
0.17
0.38 1247.37
Male Others
2.01
13.33
7.56
7.56
9.75
4.61
8.02
8.55
1.96
11.27
1.08
5.28
13.37
18.76
9.73
10.59
10.46
7.67
7.98
4.23
4.12
7.11
3.33
7.41
7.60
0.82
5.10
0.38
1.39
7.84
5.23
0.19
5.70
3.27
0.95
1.40
0.53
2.24
2.99
3.14
1.08
835 .95
in Asian countries. The female ratio in land
transmission has not changed much since then as
indicated in Figures 111-8, 9, 10, 11, though their
proportion has conspicuously increased in the past
several years. As to the transmission between the
sexes, the total extent indicates a very balanced
proportion (Table 111-7) . In total, 113.74 acres
from female to male and 111.01 acres from male
to female were transmitted during the period.
Land transfer, on the other hand, shows a
slightly different feature. As indicated in Figures
111-12, 13, 14 and 15, the female ratio has increased especially in the last decade, even though
the absolute figures have remained constant. A
total of 203.48 acres were transferred from male
to female whereas 195.69 acres were transferred
how maintain the balance. While losing all the
four lots originally granted to them, they acquired
three lots originally granted to Indians and two
others originally granted to a Malay. To sum up,
the Malays have increased their landholding at
the cost of the Indians and Chettiyars38 ) .
3.
Female Landholding
One of the interesting features in land transaction is the high percentage of female landholders.
The yearly change of their transaction is indicated
in Table 111-5 (transmission) and Table 111-6
(transfer). Female landholders occupied around
one half of the originally granted land (235.51 out
of 482.65 acres), which itself is remarkably high
25.00
,---------------------------~
20.00
mOthers
o Male
. F&M
• Female
15.00
"
go
«
10.00
5.00
0.00
....
0
~
:::
....
'"
~
~
Figure III-S.
~
a-
....
....
N
a-
-
'"'"~
.... ....
'" '"~ '"'"~ '"a-".... "~
V)
~
V)
V)
V)
~
~
'"~ '"~
V)
'D
.... ....
.... .... '"
....
a.... ~ ~
V)
'D
~
'"ao~
....
....
ao
~
'"~
Year
Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transmission (from) - A-
100%
80%
mOthers
o Male
IiIF&M
• Female
60%
"OIl
'"f:!
u
«
40%
20%
0%
.... ....
.... ....
a- a~ .... ....
V)
0
'"'"~ '"....~ '"~.... '"a-.... '"a-a-.... '"....a-v a-"........
"
~
~
V)
....
'"'D.... 'D....~ ........~ a-........ a-a-........ '"ao~ ao~.... a-~....
a- a- '"
....
.... a.... aV)
V)
V)
V)
V)
Year
Figure 111-9. Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transmission (from) -8-
-
44 -
25 .00
20.00
15.00
mOthers
oMale
DF&M
mFemale
"00
'"~
u
<I:
10.00
5.00
0.00
r-
0
~
....
....
~
~
'"
~
~
'"'"~ ~r-'" ........'" '".... '"....'" '"~...
'" '" '"
...
r-
V)
....
V)
~ ~
Year
V)
V)
~
'"~ '"'"~ '"~rV)
....
r-
~
V)
r-
~
'"~r- oo~'"
r-
00
~
....
'"~
Figure 111-10. Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transmission (to) -A100%
80%
60%
m Others
o Male
rnF&M
m Female
""'"~"
u
<I:
40%
20%
0%
r-
0
~
....
....
~
~
~
~
~
....
'"'"~ '"r-.... ~'" ....'" ~'"'" ...'"~ .......r- ........
'"
'"
'" '"
V)
V)
V)
V)
~
Year
'"~ '"'"~ '"....r'"
V)
FC
~
V)
r-
~
'"~r- oo'"~
r-
00
~
....
'"~
Figure 111-11. Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transmission (to) -B-
Table 111-7.
(to)
Female
F&M
Male
Others
Total
Total
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Land Transmission between Sex
(from)
Female
215
78.34
1
2.22
244
113.74
5
1.05
465
195.35
F&M
6
2.11
3
1.25
9
3.37
Male
239
111.01
2
0.91
256
175.13
2
0.40
499
287.46
Others
Notes: 1. F - Female, M - Male
2. Others include banks, government agencies, etc.
-
45 -
1
0.01
1
0.01
Total
460
191.47
3
3.13
504
290.13
7
1.46
974
486.19
Historical Study on Land Transaction in a Perak Kampong. Malaysia (Mizushima)
60.00 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _--,
50.00
40.00
mOthers
oMale
m F&M
• Female
"
~ 30.00
u
.q:
20.00
10.00
0.00
r-
,....
,....
~
~
0
::::
~
~
~
M
N
~
r-
N
~
,....
V)
M
M
~
,....
0-
0-
r-
M
,....
'" ~" "~
~
V)
V)
0-
V)
~
~
~
V)
r-
'"~'" '"~
,....
r-
~
V)
0-
~
~
r-
r-
M
oo
~
r-
00
~
,....
0-
~
Year
Figure 111-12.
Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transfer (from) -A-
100% ~mmmm~mmmmmrrmmmm~mmmm~~~~mmmm~mmmmmrrmmmmmrnmmmm~mmmTIm
80%
mOthers
oMale
IIIlF&M
• Female
60%
"""
'"~
u
.q:
40%
20%
0%
r-
0
0-
,....
,....
,....
.....
0-
~
0,....
~
0,....
M
N
0-
.....
r-
N
0-
,....
M
~
V)
M
0-
,....
0M
'",....
..,. r-..,.
,....
0-
'",....
M
cr,....
,....
V)
V)
V)
~
Year
Figure 111-13.
V)
M
0-
V)
0-
M
r-
00
~
,....
0-
~
Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transfer (from) -8-
in the opposite direction (Table 111-8).
The comparatively high proportion of female
landholding was interpreted by some villagers in
two ways. The first was due to the co-existence of
two types of customary law - matriarchal "adat
perpateh" and patriarchal "adat temenggong."
Second was the high mobility of the male population. According to an informant. men may go
anywhere for employment. whereas women stay
back in the kampong. This statement implies the
overall social change surrounding Malay kampong in which employment opportunities for men
in the cities tend to decrease the importance of
landholding as the means for survival.
IV.
'"~ '",.... '"r-~ ,....r::: r-,.... r-,.... oo
'" '" '" '"
Landholding in the Malay Peninsula
In his study about land tenure in the Malay
Peninsula, Paul Kratoska made a critical remark
about the notion of the importance of landholding
(Kratoska 1985: 16-17). Despite a prevalent
notion that Malay peasants have a close attachment to their land, he argued, the files of the
colonial administration contain numerous complaints about peasants disposing of their holdings.
As stated above, British land policy aimed at
introducing capital and labor, both foreign and
domestic, to open unreclaimed land. Land was
abundant, so that land was granted at nominal
rent to any who applied for it. Their landed right
was then duly registered. Peasants who acquired
land ownership, however, deserted in great
number. The colonial government was puzzled to
find them apparently unconcerned about land
titles and willing to abandon established holdings.
From this evidence Kratoska argued that the
-46 -
60.00
50.00
40.00
S Others
"""
OMaie
IIF&M
• Female
@ 30.00
~
20.00
~
@§
~ ~ ~ § ~ ~
g~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Year
Figure 111-14.
Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transfer (to) -A-
100% mnmmmrrmmmmmmmTImmmmmmmmmm~mT~mrrmmmmmTImmmmmrrmmmmmmmmmmmrrmm~
80%
60%
o Others
40%
o Male
IIIF&M
• Female
"""
'~"
<.)
<{
20%
Year
Figure 111-15.
Yearly Change in the Composition of Sex in Land Transfer (to) -8-
Table III-S.
(to)
Female
F&M
Male
Others
Total
Total
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Case
Acreage
Land Transfer between Sex
(from)
Female
348
185.40
1
0.44
264
195.69
613
381.53
F&M
22
15.20
9
9.61
31
24.81
Male
317
203.48
Others
4
3.75
2.78
446
628.67
1
0.38
765
835.30
Notes: 1. F - Female, M - Male
2. Others include banks, government agencies, etc.
-
47 -
4
1.98
8
5.73
Total
691
407.82
2
3.21
723
835.95
1
0.38
1417
1247.37
image of a Malay peasant seeking "fixity of
tenure" or having "an almost mystical attachment" to his land needs modification39}.
Kratoska's remark, that the colonial land
system introduced to Malaya "owed far more to
the English and English colonial practices than to
Malay tradition" (Kratoska 1985: 23), is also
applicable to other colonial states like India,
which was placed under British rule much earlier.
Pre-colonial South India, for instance, had a
unique indigenous production relationship termed
the mirasi system, which was not based upon
landholding but upon the principle of proportional share in the whole village produce40).
Under the Raiyatwari System, however, all village
land was demarcated into hundreds of plots, numbered, assessed, and allotted to a raiyat (i.e. landholder) more or less in the same way as observed
in colonial Malaya. Indian rural society, which
also had much surplus land in the pre-colonial
period, however, was formed differently from
Malaya during the colonial period. The resultant
land-distribution structure among raiyats became
very skewed due to the caste structure and other
indigenous factors 41 ).
How, then, was the situation in the Malay
Peninsula? What occurred to the landholding
structure? To clarify this situation, it is essential
to reconstruct the size of individual landholding
and its structure. What is available for this task is
EMR/GM utilized in this paper. Actually these
land records are the only available written documents to obtain information about individuals.
By gathering individual names scattered in dozens
of land records, we can come near to reconstruct
the frequency and extent of all types of transactions in the past hundred years. As detailed
analysis into individual land transaction needs
further investigation, the task will be attempted
on another occasion in more complete form. We
will here look at the figures compiled so far 42 ).
Table IV-l is the result accomplished so far.
The table indicates the extent of land lost (transferred or transmitted to others), acquired (granted by the State, transferred or transmitted from
others), and the difference between the two.
Among the landholders who were involved in
land transmission and land transfer in the period
between 1906 and 1991 the largest extent acquired
by any landholder was as small as 16.93 acres.
The majority of the holders could acquire less
than four acres. As they also transferred or
transmitted all or part of their holdings during the
period, the balance left is even smaller-as little as
5.44 acres. As mentioned before, landholding size
at the time of grant was mostly less than four
acres. Since then lands have been frequently
transacted as has been clarified so far. The overall
result is truly quite amazing. The structure has
not changed at all for the past hundred years,
which indicates that the objective of the British
land policies to maintain Malay peasants as small
holders did succeed, so far as the Malay kampongs located in the Malay Reserve were concerned. Though there occurred a number of land
transactions in the past, which itself reflects
people's aspiration for landholding, they never
reformed the society into the highly stratified one
to the extent observed in India.
The Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913
played no doubt the most critical role in this
regard. Withdrawal of Chettiyars' or money
lenders' interests from the Malay Reserve lands
has produced, in a sense, a unique social structure
different from many other Asian countries. One
of the reasons why the Malays do not direct much
attention to the class differentiation among themselves at present may be attributed to this historical background. Anyhow the Enactment surely
decided the later development of the Malay Peninsula.
The situation, however, need not be totally
attributed to the colonial policy makers. Contrary to India, where unoccupied cultivable land
disappeared much earlier than the Malay Peninsula, Malaysia has still more land to reclaim in many
parts. Her superiority in ecological resources has
enabled a settler to open practically anywhere if
not restricted by local socio-political conditions.
Seeking more stable ownership in land, in this
sense, may not have been a critical concern for
Malay peasants. Should we, then, regard the
historical study of the landholding structure as
somewhat meaningless in the Malaysian context?
In this regard it may be worth noting a tale told
by an elderly villager in the kampong. One day a
villager in his sixties dropped in. According to
him, his grand father, who possessed an elephant,
was often asked for assistance from a Sultan whenever a meeting was convened in the court, had
four wives with twenty-four children, lived for
one hundred fifteen years (!) till his death in the
1920s, and possessed nine-tenths of the village
land along the Perak river. Whether his statement
is true or not is not the main concern here. What
is important is to observe that there was, and is, a
notion that influence afforded by a local magnate
was symbolically expressed by the possession of
-48 -
Table IV-t.
Individual Holdings
Extent
Lost
Acquired
Balance
less than
Trm+Trs
Grant+Trm+Trs
(Acquired)-(Lost)
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
1 .
3
2
2
2
7
12
9
3
13
32
64
141
240
623
62
7
13
4
14
42
84
176
336
1001
131
1212
16.93
1824
16.93
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
11
-2
-3
Total
Max (in acs.)
**1
7
15
34
125
672
*1011
*18
*4
*1
853
**6.53
Notes:
* The reasons for the balance of some holdings falling below zero are:
1. some lands are held jointly by a few landholders who sometimes appear in other holdings separately,
2 . fresh surveys have been conducted in many lots with the resultant changes in acreage,
3 . mistakes conducted either by officers in charge at the time of registration or by Mizushima in data processing, or
4. original records are badly damaged or illegible .
** Malay burial ground
an elephant, association with the Sultan's Court,
many wives with numerous children, and important to note, land ownership over a large area,
whatever the connotation of "land ownership"
might have been.
Aspiration for land ownership is observed not
only in the high frequency of land transaction but
also in other evidence, too, not to mention a
number of new settlements organized by Felda for
the landless, or the well-known controversy about
the grant of land titles to her settlers. For instance, it was found through interviews that as
-
high as forty percent of the households in the
studied area did not possess any agricultural land
other than house sites. Tenancy contract in which
rubber tapped by a coolie (tenant) was shared
fifty-fifty with the owner was prevalent. In addition every villager knew well which tree belonged
to whom43 ). From this evidence it is hard to deny
the Malay peasants' attachment to landholding.
Even then it may not be adequate to locate land
and landholding in the domain of relationship in
the local society. Actually people's activities have
been very much diversified in the rapidly growing
49 -
Historical Study on Land Transaction in a Perak K ampong, Malaysia (Mizushima)
economy in the past decades. The ever-growing
industrial development in Malaysia in recent years
has attracted a large work force, consisting
mainly of young people, from Malay kampongs.
In this process land is losing its role as the means
of production in the long-established Malay kampongs. It is true that a large number of subdivided lots are still held by out-migrants to urban
areas, but they will be left idle in due course unless
the landholder finds someone to take over their
care. The "traditional" Malay kampongs are,
thus, destined to lose their role as production
base. Kampongs will remain as home land for the
Malays, nothing more nothing less.
Lastly it should be remembered that some progressive farmers in Kampong J. have acquired
some land for agriculture in the remote and newly
reclaimed area. Thus the agricultural development in Kampong J. was observed on the periphery of the established area. The Malay Peninsula as a whole seems to have followed the same
process in the past hundred years.
4.
5.
Notes
1. The research was made possibly by the fund
for Scientific Research, Ministry of Education, Japan, in 1991- 92 (No. 03041033:
Project Chief. Dr. K. Miyazaki of ILCAA,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) and in
1993- 94 (No. 05041015. Project Chief. Prof.
Y. KomoguchiofKomazawa University) for
which I am grateful. Thanks are due to the
staffs of Pejabat Tanah K uala Kangsar,
Majlis Daerah Kuala Kangsar, Pejabat
Buruh Kuala Kangsar, and the SocioEconomic Research Unit/the Economic Planning Unit in the Prime Minister's Department. Special mention is addressed to the
support and assistance by the people in the
studied kampong, without which the research in the area formerly occupied by the
Japanese army wouldn't be possible.
2. The first one (Mizushima 1992) attempted to
clarify the structural change of local society
in the pre-colonial period. The second one
(Mizushima 1994) studied the nature of land
policies in Perak.
3. The Malay Peninsular in the nineteenth century was thinly populated while having vast
unopened area. The population of Perak in
1879 was estimated to be only 81,084. The
first Census of 1891 gives the figure of
214,254. As the main industry in the period
-
6.
7.
8.
50 -
was tin-mining, non-Malays exceeded
Malays numerically. The nationalities were
as follows : Malays, 96,719; Chinese, 94,345;
Tamil, 13,086; Aborigines, 5,779; Bengalis,
1,755; Javanese and other Malay races,
1,483; Europeans, 366; Eurasians, Jews and
Armenians, 293; not named, 428. (ARP
1896: 61)
As is known from some works, two conflicting views as to policy priority towards small
holding and large scale estate were observed
at the initial period among the colonial
officers. The controversy between Maxwell
and Swettenham regarding the land policies
to be introduced to Perak was a typical one.
While Maxwell stressed the existence of the
"customary tenure" of peasants, Swettenham
totally refused to acknowledge it (see for
detail, Ghee 1976; Mizushima 1994) .
Common to both of them was that their
arguments were not based upon reality but
their notion towards Asian society and pragmatism for colonial rule.
The size of "small holding" varied in the
respective regulations. In the land regulations enacted at the end of the nineteenth
century, a small holding meant less than one
hundred acres. In the Land Code of 1926
(implemented in 1928), which was the
second most important regulation of its sort,
"country land" not exceeding 10 acres in area
fell into the category of small holding (Cowgill, 1928: 182-184). The National Land
Code of 1965, which has been in force with
some revisions till the present, followed the
category adopted in 1926 Land Code.
Small holdings have been registered in EMR
or GM kept in the Pejabat Tanah at the
district level. On the other hand larger holdings have been registered in the Registry of
Titles under a Registrar of Titles (Pejabat
Pendaftar Gran/Pejabat Pengarah Tanah
dan Galian) in the State capital.
The records are: Land Office, K uala Kangsar, Registers (A/PTKK2) ; Penghulus Register of Application 1896- 1915; Application
Book-Agricultural, Kota Lama K iri, Kuala
Kangsarll /I/1897-3/3/1904;PenghulusRegister of Application 1914- 17; Register of Titles
Indices 1885- 1929; Register Book Mukim
Kota Lama K iri & c. (Accession List 1971 :
75 ; Accession List 1972: 88-90) .
The period covered by the first set of records
between 1894 and 1906 will be studied on
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
another occasion when the mending process
is completed.
There are In total thirty-one volumes of
EMR and fifteen volumes of GM for the
Mukim of Kota Lama Kiri. Whenever the
space for new additions becomes insufficient,
the holding has been transferred from EMR
to GM and a new serial number in GM has
been given. Hence the total number of GM
increases over time.
The reason for not choosing a single kampong was as follows. Historically the primary administrative unit has not been a kampong but a Mukim, so that the boundary of a
kampong is hard to identify first of all. As
the lots belonging to the same kampong are
often cut off from others and scattered (see
Figure III-I), the boundary composing a
kampong can be known only after checking
dozens of EMR/GM volumes in the vicinity,
which is not practicable. In addition, the
notion of a village as a social unit is not
acknowledged In the villagers' life, even
though a kampong as a political unit has been
much strengthened in recent years because of
the many administrative assignments offered
to a Ketua Kampong or village headman.
For instance, my stay in the studied kampong
went unnoticed by some villagers for a few
months till my house-to-house interviews
were conducted. This was in strong contrast
to my experience in a few south Indian villages, where the arrival of a foreigner came
to be known to most villagers within a day.
See for instance PAR 1905: 5; 1928: 16; 1929:
16. Flooding regularly inundated many of
the houses until the 1960s, when the Chendroh Dam was constructed in the upper Perak
River.
It is said that 200 indentured Tamil, 290
Bengali laborers, and 22 Bengali mechanics
were brought for its construction in the year
1899 from India. The bridge was the largest
in the period (PAR 1900: 8).
Villagers usually attributed the disappearance of paddy cultivation to the water
shortage caused by the construction of the
Chendroh Dam in the 1960s. The process,
however, started much earlier as will be mentioned later.
Some of their former occupations were: teachers-8, policemen-4, special constables-2,
soldiers-12. These figures indicate the importance of government jobs for the Malays.
-
15. The Report for the year 1909 noted that
"these people [foreign Malays or those from
outside] cannot be expected to stay unless
they can get padi land, for no Malay settlement is permanent without padi." (PAR
1909: 10)
16. It may be noted that the spread of rubber
cultivation occurred at the cost of rice cultivation. As early as 1910, it is recorded that
"where the rubber planter is firmly established, the Malay often finds that there is
more congenial employment afield than the
wearisome toil of digging over his small holding for an exiguous return." (PAR 1910: 8)
It was also recorded in 1914 that rice cultivation in Kuala Kangsar area "appears to
become less and less popular: in the Bota
mukim more than two-thirds of the fields
were uncultivated." (PAR 1914: 6) In the
studied area we can observe the conversion
of "nature of cultivation" in the mid-I920s.
They were 1. from Bendang (rice) to
Rubber, to Bendang and Rubber, or to Bendang and Kampong, 2. from Garden to
Rubber, or to Rubber and Bendang, 3. from
Kampong to Rubber, and 4. from Kampong
and Bendang to Rubber and Bendang (see
Figure III-I). Thus, almost all the categories
of land proceeded to rubber.
17. As there were many cases of new subdivisions or the revision of extents by fresh
survey, they are excluded from the calculation here to avoid overlaps and only the
original lots with original acreage are counted. For the different categories of land
transaction in the land laws, see Soo and Tee
1987.
18. Caveat may indicate some interesting feature
in land transaction. So far as the studied area
is concerned, however, there are no cases of
caveat between Malays and non-Malays.
The analysis of caveat is therefore not attempted in this paper.
19. In Perak 4,598 new titles were issued in 1894
with the total alienated acreage of 180,958
(ARP 1895: 5) . The alienation process continued at more or less the same pace for some
more years. The total acreage alienated in
Perak for agricultural purposes between 1894
and 1905 was 2,752,393 acres (see ARP of
the respective years).
20. Some parts in Negri Sembilan or Selangor,
for instance, had already experienced "land
hunger" and "peasants were hard put to
51 -
21.
22.
23.
24.
25 .
obtain suitable alternative land" previous to
the Malay Reservations Enactment of 1913
(Ghee 1977: 116).
Ho's study of two
Mukims in Selangor indicates that sixty-one
percent of the land was alienated between
1908 and 1919 and nearly all the land alienated up to 1960 was by 1933 (Ho 1981: 2829).
In this paper "Indians" signifies those other
than Chettiyars. The identification of communities through the analysis of personal
names is generally not difficult except in the
case of Indian Muslims and Christians. In
the case of Indian Muslims, they tend to use
the term of "son of/daughter of' instead of
"bin/binti" used for Malays.
The Perak Administration Report of 1916
noted that "what is wanted is land that can
be planted up and then sold, or, often, sold
before it is planted." (PAR 1916: 3)
Rubber production doubled every year between 1908 and 1912 (Ghee 1977: 73) .
Though the rubber price dropped in 1913,
production continued to increase even after
the boom (see PAR for the respective years).
The Administration Report of Perak for the
year 1909 noted that the Malays planted over
80,000 Para rubber trees in the Mukim of
Kota Lama Kiri in that year alone (PAR
1909: 7).
During the first ten years after the enactmen t, 1,962, 175 acres were gazetted as
Malay Reserve in Perak (PAR 1923: 4) .
With the new inclusion of the whole Mukim
of Kampong Buaia and the Bukit Chandan
surrounding the Sultan's Palace at Kuala
Kangsar, the whole length of the Perak river
throughout the district came to be reserved
for Malays by 1935 (Federated Malay States,
Annual Report on the Social and Economic
Progress of the People of Perak for the year
1935: 78).
The first case was Lot No. 1159, which was
granted to a Malay in 1910, transferred to a
Chinese in 1911, to an Indian in 1913, charged by a Chettiyar in 1913, and finally transferred to a Malay in 1915. Another case was
Lot No. 1940, which was initially granted to
two Malays (brother and sister) in 1906,
transferred to a Malay in 1910 and then to a
Chinese in 1911, charged several times by a
few Chettiyars between 1912 and 1924, transferred to a Chettiyar in 1924, and finally to a
Malay in 1969.
-
26. Ghee, in his well documented study about the
process of its formulation, indicated that
Birch (British Resident in Perak) considered
the Chettiyars rather than the planters as the
villains (Ghee 1977: 108. See also Kratoska
1985: 35).
27. As to their general activities in Malaya, see
Mahadevan 1978.
28. There were three principal banks operating in
the FMS in the year 1931. They were the
Chartered Bank of India, Australia and
China, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation, and the Mercantile Bank of
India, Limited. The number of branches in
FMS was eleven in total. In addition to these
commercial banks, several types of cooperative societies operated.
The total
number of Rural Co-operative Credit Societies in Perak, for instance, was 42 with a
membership of 1,346 in the same year (PAR
1931: 43 . See also Ghee 1977: 83-87).
29. Only one out of 167 charge cases have been
by the Malays, which indicates very poor
financial ability on the side of Malays.
30. Loan from public agencies (banks, cooperative societies, or government) started to
appear only in the late 1970s. Except for one
case, all the charge cases (twenty-five in
total) recorded in the EMR/GM since the
World War II were by public agencies.
31. One by one these Chettiyars have gone back
to India. There remained only a few of them
in Kuala Kangsar at the time of field study.
32. The colonial government also offered agricultural loan, but "the small agriculturalist is
not yet fully aware of the advantages to be
derived from this cheap form of raising
money." (PAR 1911: 10)
33. The Enactment did not prohibit non-Malays
from obtaining lease of the Malay Reserve
land for the period of less than three years.
The Administration Report for Perak for the
year 1924 noted that the leases of land in
Malay Reservation were taking the place of
charges to Chettiyars as a method of raising
cash (PAR 1924: 4) . In the studied area,
however, all leases except one were by the
government engineers of the Public Works
Department.
34. There were in total six Malay to non-Malay
charge cases after the studied area was gazetted as Malay Reserve. Five out of the six
cases were charged by several Chettiyars and
one by a Chinese. All occurred between 1920
52 -
and 1931.
35. For instance it was reported in 1916 that
despite the "overwhelming demand for land
for rubber planting" or the "abnormal
demand" for land applications, the land in
the Malay reservation was in "but small
demand." (PAR 1916: 3) This did not mean,
however, that the demand for rubber land
decreased. Though the year 1918 saw a
collapse in the rubber market and in the
demand for rubber land in Kuala Kangsar,
the following year saw again a great increase
in the value of land and in the number of
land transactions (PAR 1918: 4) .
36. The yearly change of frequency classified by
communities shows an interesting trend,
which is hard to interpret at the moment.
The year 1915 saw many Indians resorting to
the Chettiyars for loan, whereas charge cases
of the Chinese lots became more frequent
after 1916.
37. One of the main causes of land transfer by
the Malays in the 1920s seemed to be the
precarious nature of pilgrimage in the period.
Perak Administration Report of 1924 noted
that a good deal of the registration in Kuala
Kangsar was caused by persons about to
make the pilgrimage who transferred their
land to relatives in case of failure to return
(PAR 1924: 5).
38. The result is in strong contrast to the one
obtained by Ho's study in the Reserve-nonReserve mixed area, where the Malays' share
had decreased from 36 to 22 percent whereas
the Chinese' share had increased from 27 to
67 percent by 1975.
39. Kratoska noted that labour, not land, formed
the basis of indigenous land tenure (Kratoska 1985: 19).
40. For details about mirasi system and the historical change in village structure in the past
two hundred years in South India, see Mizushima 1992.
41. It may be noted in addition that the objectives of the land policies in the two colonial
states were completely different. While the
Malayan government aimed at attracting
more agricultural settlers by offering preferential land tenure, that of India tried to
secure as much land revenue as possible by
replacing revenue defaulters with some other
raiyats. The difference in importance of land
revenue versus customs on goods in the state
revenue was the basic reason for the policy
-
difference between the two states.
42. It is however not at all easy to accomplish
this task even if we supplement our knowledge by the information obtained through
interviews. The major reasons are, (I) the
same person has several names including nick
names, (2) several people have the same
name, (3) spellings are not at all formalized
for the same person, (4) shorter/abridged
spellings (for instance, Mohammed/Mohd.
IMat, Kelsom/Som) are very often used, (5)
serial prefix indicating the birth order (No. I
- Kulup [for male] or Long [for female],
No. 2- Ngah, No. 3-Alang, No. 4- Andak/Pandak, No. 5-Anjang/Panjang, No. 6- Teh/Puteh, No. 7- Hitam/Itam, No. 8-Uda, No. 9Busu, No. Io-Kulup Balik) are not regularly
used, (6) parts of the names are skipped, (7)
the title "Haji" is not regularly used, (8)
fathers names are not always added, and so
on. It is a time-consuming work and the
result of the work produced here cannot exclude mistakes. Though I spent several
months in producing Table IV-I, I am still
afraid of including some mistakes in the table
and in the analysis below. It is, however, to
be noted that the argument below would not
be affected much even if all corrections are
accomplished.
43. It should be mentioned that a somewhat
contradictory situation is observable, too.
Residents living in urban areas sometimes
acquire land in remote places and let the local
people freely use it, voluntarily or involuntarily. A fairly large portion of land under
rubber trees in the studied area was left untapped, too. Frequent desertions of peasants
noted by Kratoska may also indicate people's
indifference to land ownership. This contradicting evidence may, however, be interpreted in other ways. Investment in land by
urban dwellers is very often undertaken in
anticipation of future increase of land value.
Neglect of rubber land could be due to the
lingering lower price in the studied period
and partly due to labour shortage. The desertion could be motivated by the peasants'
aspiration for betterment by seeking new economic gain elsewhere rather than sticking to
a particular piece of land. Interestingly Kratoska gives economic reasoning to their
choice. According to his source, peasants
who did not repay loans and underwent foreclosure proceedings could expect to receive a
53 -
substantial return while a farmer who borrowed intending to repay loan faced crippling
interest rates. Peasants could obtain virgin
land on application by paying nominal premiums and fees (Kratoska 1985: 41-42) .
References
Report on Larut for the Year ending 31st December, 1874, from H.B.M. Assistant Resident of
Perak, to the Hon 'ble Colonial Secretary, Singapore.
Buang, H. S. H. 1989. Malaysian Torrens System,
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.
Das, S. K. 1963. The Torrens System in Malaya,
Singapore, Malayan Law Journal Ltd.
Cowgill, J. V. 1928. System of Land Tenure in
the Federated Malay States. The Malayan
Agricultural Journal, XVI-5, pp. 181-193.
Ghee, L. T. 1976. Originsofa Colonial Economy,
Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
Ghee, L. T. 1977. Peasants and Their Agricultural
Economy in Colonial Ma laya 1874-1941,
Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur.
Ho, Wai Suet, 1981: Changing Ethnic Patterns of
Land Ownership in Mukim Rasa and Mukim
Batang Kali, Selangor (1891-1975) . Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography, vol. 3, pp.
28-36.
Hooker, M. B. 1968. A Note on the Malayan
Legal Digests. The Journal of Ma laysian
Branch of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 41-1, pp.
157-170.
Kratoska, P . H . 1983. 'Ends that we cannot
foresee': Malay Reservations in British
Malaya. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies,
vol. XIV-I , pp. 149-168.
Kratoska, P. H. 1984. Penghulus in Perak and
Selangor: Rationalisation and Decline of a
Traditional Malay Office. The Journal of Malaysian Branch of Royal Asiatic Society, vol.
LVII-2, pp. 31-59.
Kratoska, P. H . 1985. The Peripatetic Peasant
and Land Tenure in British Malaya. Journal
of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. XVI- I, pp. 1645.
Mahadevan, R. 1978. Pattern of Enterprise of
Immigrant Entrepreneurs A Study of Chettiars in Malaya, 1880-1930. Economic and
Political Weekly (January 28-February 4,
1978), pp. 146-152.
Maxwell, W. E. 1883a. Straits Settlements, Pres-
ent and Future Land Systems, Rangoon.
Maxwell, W. E. 1883b. The Torrens System of
Conveyancing by Registration of Title with an
Account of the Practice of the Lands Titles
Office in Adelaide, South Australia, and Suggestions as to the Introduction of the System in the
Straits Settlements.
Maxwell, W. E. 1894. Memorandum on the Introduction of a Land Code in the Native States in
the Malaya Peninsula, Singapore.
Mizushima, T. 1990. A Study of Local Society in
South India. Regional Views, no. 3, pp. 3-63.
Mizushima, T. 1992. Malay Local Society in the
Pre-Colonial Period. Local Societies in Malaysia, K. Miyazaki (ed.), ILCAA, vol. 1, pp. 135.
Mizushima, T. 1994. Land Administration in
Perak. Tounan Ajia-Rekishi to Bunka-, vol.
23, pp. 22-42. (in Japanese)
National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) with Index &
Cases, incorporating All Amendments as at 25th
November 1991, compiled by Legal Research
Board, International Law Book Services,
Kuala Lumpur.
Noar, I. M. 1922. Local Land Tenure. The
Malayan Agricultural Journal, vol. X-I, pp. 13
-17.
Senftleben, W. 1976. Background to Agricultural
Land Policy in Malaysia, Schriften des Instituts fur Asienkunde in Hamburg Band 44,
Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.
Soo, T. K. & Tee, K. L. 1987. Land Law in
Malaysia Cases and Commentary, Singapore.
Swettenham, F . A. 1894. Minute by the British
Resident, Perak. (in Maxwell 1894)
Voon, P. K. 1976. Malay Reservations and
Malay Land Ownership in Semenyih and Ulu
Semenyih Mukims Selangor. Modern Asian
Studies, vol. 10-4, pp. 509-523.
Voon, P. K. 1977. Rural Land Ownership and
Development in the Malay Reservations of
Peninsular Malaysia. South East Asian Studies, vol. 14-4, pp. 496-512.
Wilson, H. E. 1975. The Evolution of Land
Administration in the Malay States: A Survey
of British-Inspired Changes. The Journal of
Malaysian Branch of Royal Asiatic Society, vol.
48-1, pp. 120-133.
Wong, David S. Y. 1975. Tenure and Land
Dealings in the Malay States, Singapore University Press, Singapore.
-54-

Historical Study on Land Transaction in a Perak Kampong, Malaysia 1)

Transcription

Similar documents

Hari Raya celebration - Iwa

Natural Medicine - MII Breakfast Talk

announcement and call for papers

Hari Raya Celebration

VR technology at Malacca

Citrawarna Malaysia

Adventure Parks in Malaysia | Lost World of Tambun

Eid Mubarak, Selamat Hari Raya Celebration at White Lodge