Title
Author(s)
Indians in Malaya, 1900-1945
Khan, Latiffa.
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
1963
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/28355
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights)
and the right to use in future works.
Ir
TY
:i flflO-l95
A Therir,
Irrrnte
to tII(
uL
of
Uvr-tty rf lTonr Kong
for the
Der're of Mtr of Art3
by
Latifa Khan
March 1963
rtr
'î:
-trinr po;rt j? my i;n:in: o1 the rmbjcct
oL t'ir resirrh emnat
tl'e topic of t
frnni
rrt1ization tl,at
Indiais in te ri]ural society of
X4aJaya ;L:E been little explorPJ, in cont-act to
the wcnith of mtteriaù wliicb apearer in the lt
dccad
concerninc the Chi'iOe coriiunty. ThE? object
of this work is an atteript to fJfl the 1aCuni which
Prv('1oDe$ the Indian community, co
Rbout
to brinC
beHer iertaning of the racial proUemr
ol' Malaya.
The historical, social, political and
cultural aspects of the Indian community in Malaye
are so wide that it has been found convenient to
concentrate on the barest essentials4 I have tried
to trace the period when the Indian labourer left
his own village in India and found himself in
Malaya1 paying attention to the characteristica,
magnitude and pattern of Thdian immigration to a
new lana. The Ji,fe an we1aDe o
the Irxians as
sell as their role in the development of the country
are also dealt with. This study c1e31s min1
bh
iorio
Lth
1900 to :L9+5. Thc bepjnnjni- of the
teïtieth
tury saw a c.hane ii the
oionic
cUmate of Ia1ya when rubber first carne npo
th
scene. Herce increased ipirnipration or Inrtn
1bourer& into the country started. The period
rftor 195 nitrked the rai growth of individualism
and tndeponcence aion' the younger
eneration i-n
tue !nan corimunity: the transition front oid
ri1itive ways of lii's to nodern times.
Ny period of roseareli in Hong Kong,
Sinpapore and Malaya was made posrible mainly by
the ceneous asiotance of the iotary Club of
Honir
Above all, I am deeply indebted to my
sipexvisor, Professor B. Harrison, the Head of
the Hiritory
epaxtment, University of Hone Kong,
for his valuable suggestions and constructive
criticizm. My thauks are also due to Mr. u.N. Jackson,
the Teputy Registrar of the University of Hong Kong,
whose help was of immense
a1ue. I acknowledge with
thanks the asi3taace riven t
the COmLiisGiOner for labour,,
Kl1ri2-L I1thtur; !taji
of Public
ie by Nr. S. 1Çuznrr,
e1eration of 1a1aya,
bdu1 Nubin 3hepar1 Keeprr
ecord, Wuala Innipur
and is Shine
GordC)'n, T)irector of the Malaysian Sociological.
ingaore. I am alzo
2esearch Institute Ltd.,
'rnteial to thc
once
of inCormation lirtec
n
thc biblio'rahy1 without which it wouùì have beet
tnrnosible to attenrnt thLs
tndy.
C CITTENTS
ao
I
LiCIOROU1W C'? ITDIN
IC-ATICF TO
i
II
11ISTO!Y O
ITT
flITO±Y CF Ii'DIAN IIICflATID1 .
:iv
INDIfIT flIGiY.TIO!
I1CIO'ATIO«
.
.
.
.
52
.
12?
I'DIàN i-OTULTICll
G:O;Th .............. 215
¡IT : NV LAND .
V
LI
VI
I:niIAl !WLE IN TItE
AND fliLFAR
O'MALAYA .
VII
.
.
.
2?3
VLOflNT
.
.
SUMAlY AND CCITCLUSION
.....
. .......
.
.
331
379
G LOSSARY ............... .
402
BIi3LIOG1AP}rY.............
40k
APPNDICES..............
ko
CIEAFTE
Z
BAC(GROUND OF INDIAN MIGRATION TO
MALAYA1; A SURVEY OF ThE AUSES
anm TRE 1WVENT.
"before me lies the ocean
Behind me are my hills,
I shall cross the ocean
And make my Íortune overseas,
Arzd I shall return before I die.
Bat should misfortune overtake me
And I die in foreign lands,
Lay ne down to sleep
On a gentle eastern slope,
That my eyes may fondly gaze
Upon the vision of my native hills."
What Lim Kean Siew wrot
about the fond
wish of the Chinese migrants is true also of the
Indians. It was with fond hope of return and a
dream of future wealth that the Chinese in their
iillions poured across the China Sea into foreign
lands. Theirs was not to extend a kingdom or to
set up an empire, or to subjugate or oppress any
people, but merely to build for themselves a
fortune and to return to their native hills, and
there to establish a clan house rich in eons and
2
grandsons. So in the same way can we trace the
origin of the Irian migration to Malaya during
the latter half of the nineteenth and the beginning
of the twentieth centuries.
Conditions in India: The fulcrum on which
Indian emigration to distant colonies rested was the
question of oerp,pIation1 irhich Dr. S. Chandrasekhar
has defined as "a matter or too many people in relation
to the whole set of facts" ox the sum of resources of
all kinaL :'zom time immemorial, there has been in
India the problem of ovei-popiilation.
"India had thousands of years ago, the
basis for a thickly settled population"
tb
Even as early as the fifteen/and sixteenth centuries,
the Europeans had been inressed by the density of
settlement, both in the plains and in the Deccan in
India.
In fact! the country was considered to be
overpopulated at that time. It is true that during
the seventeenth and eighteenth denturies, famines
took a
irrible toll of the population, and. inaecurit
3
preai1ed during the wars which were waged betwe eri
the Mogul Bercrs arid Iridiari Princes on one side
and the European Powers on the other.
Besides,
bauds of' robbexs made the roads unsafe ai.d harried
the vi11aes at their p1easu2,. But during the
latter half cil the nineteenth and the beginning
of the twentieth centuries, the natural growth of
population in India was more rapid, because by the
1850's, internaL warfare was a thing of the past,
morta1itr from epidemics had declined, due to
increasing use of medicine and scientific knowledge,
and also faniines had not been so frecjient4 Moreover,
the gradual emergence of a new order, when British
supremacy was established, also helped in lowering
mortality, and thus contributed to the unprecedented
grortb of population. During the nineteenth century,
the effecte of peace and order were felt, and of
course, the people multiplied at a quick rate.
When the rate
f increase of the population
progressed so quickly, the nitimate consequence was
k
extreme poverty1 iaisery arid suffering. As late as
l931-32
the average ludian had an income of'
Rs. 65/.- only, an amount niuch less than the incomes
of peoples in advanced countries1 as
howii by the
table below:
Table i? Per caìita (animal) Income in Certain Countries.
U.S.A.
fs. l,Li.o6
France
Rs. 621
Casada
Rs. 1,038
Germany
Rs. 603
Australia
Rs.
Japan
Ps. 281
980
British India
Rs. 65.
Therefoz'e it is hardly an exaggeration to say that
the rate of per capita inoner incomes iu the severa].
countries are indicative of the comparative levels
cf prosperity enjoyed by their peoples.
Between 1800 and 1900, the population of
India increased by about 150,000,000 in spite of
the visitation of about thirty famines which icillea
off 32,kOO,000 of the population. In 1901, the
population stood at 29k,000,O0O
By 19k]., the Censue
zecorded a population of 389 millions in
iwiL
miring
the space of fifty years which preceded the Census of
l9Afl, the population had increased by 110 millions
or 39%. Though the Indian population had expanded
.
J_o
at a slower rate than the peoples of other countries1
yet this enormous rate of increase was far too
dangerous for India where the economy was mainly
agrarian. In other words
this rate of population
growth increased quicker than her wealth and income
increase, anc consequently, poverty, misery and
sufferin9 ensued.
As a result of the overpopulation of India,
all its concomitant problems plagued Indian society.
In the first place, the standard of living1 even
today, is admittedly very low, compared to standards
in other Asian countries. It has been pointed out
that it is difficult to define the term "standard
or living" for as Professor Faircbild suggests:
"A standard of living is that level of
comfort which someone hopes to have or
wishes he had or thinks he ought to bave,
But no matter what the interpretation is, the per
caxLta TTcon5uptjoflh1 of
foods
clothing, housing,
education, medical help, oultural amenities, etc,
i_fl the past years, had been far froi satisfactory
even accoraing to any theoretical Asian (and not
Overpopulation
western) optinum standard of 1ivin
has a disastrous influence on the nutrition and
the health of people. With additional mouths to
feed, this lea4sto a deficiency of calories among
members of the family. It is best to quote
Dr. Aykroyd:
"A reasonable estimate cf the number of
calories reqixied by a man ezgaged in
easy-going agricultural or manual woz'k
is 2,OO - 2,600. In 1937 the Nutrition
Research laboratories investigated a
cross-section of a village in South
India when conditions in the District
were normal. In 50% of families1 calorie
intake per consumption unit Was below
2,300. Very similar observations have
been made among othf village groups
elsewhere in IndiaT2
According ta Dr. Aykroyd's
estimates
about 30% of
the total population is ìzierfed even in normal
times. On the other hand, Sir John Megaw, after an
7
extensive survey of' rural life in India in. 193k,
maintains that 2O
of the population Was badly
nourished, another ko% poorly nourished, while
only 39% got sufficient food. Drawing the happy
medium between these two estimates, no one can
gainsay that a high percentage of the Indian
population during the 19th-Century and the beginning
of the 20t]a.Century did not get enough to eat, as
was true of the preceding centuries. There was a
dearth oÍ' proteins, especially of the sueriox type
supplied by anixnal food, milk, meat and eggs; a
serious defect of fats; and a complete inadequacy
o
constituents like fruits, vegetables and milk,
that usually contribute the requisite quotas of
various vitamins. This was because the average
Indian could not afford a properly balanced diet:
bis poverty determined the content of his
diet
Thus a].1 the attendant evils of overpopulation
were evident in Indian society at the begin.ning o
tIa
twentieth century: poverty, undernourishnent,
malnutrition and poor 1ie1th.
Another evil which followed in train of
ovex'populatio!1 in Indian society was fooa shortage,
which usually culminated in devastating famines
which swept over the whole country. As has been
put forward by another writer:
"There i every reason for regarding
recurrent famines1ud epidemic e as
normai in India."
During the decade 1871-81, the great Indian famine
of
876-78 occurred; another famine broke out in
1898, and by 1900 there were acute famines in
various parts of India. Again, in 1908, severe
famine broce out in the Unîted Provinces. To top
it all, there was the great influenza epidemic of
1918. Eefore the latter haLf of the nineteenth
century1
there had been famines in 1770, 178k,
i8ok, 1837 and 186i, especially in Bengal and
North India. These fazines, though terrible in
their death-roll, were indicatiTe of the permanent
poverty of the Indian population in ordinai'y year
It seems that overoFu1ation and poverty were
syzonymous in Indian society in those days, and
every phase of economic life had been 3rifluenced
by them. Even during the outbreak of a famine,
as in J97 and 19OO
enough food was crown in
Indie to feed. the entire population. But the people
were so resourceless that when crops failed in one
area, they could not afford to buy food from
neighbouring provinces rich in harvests.
Many writers ori India bave customarily
pointed out that the famines, which occurred, are
due to the vagaries of the monsoon. The rainfall
of the subcontinent is highly seasonal, and je
scanty over large areas. The rainfall is also quite
variable from year to year
sometimes in certain
areas, due to lack of surplus rainfall, severe
droughts result; at other times an extra large
rainfall brings floods that are as damaging to crope
aß a drougJit. It is during the period of the South-
Weat Monsoona from mid-June that very heavy rains
lo
set in, making it the main growing season throughout
most of India? However, from mid-September
when. the
Monsoon retreats, the Coromandel coet receives
adequate rainfall. But there is no fixed time for
the monsoon to
tburstfl. it bursts at different times
over various parts of India. Therefore, it has been
well said:
t'The uncertainty of the seasons bas always
been the main cause of' unemloyrnent arid
and in no parts of flindustan
is the irregularity of the rains more
marked than on this coast of Coroinandel."
emigration1
The Madras Presidency, on the coast of Coroinandel,
had been the chief starting point for overseas
emigration. It is true that other distriote, such
as
erigal or the Central Pro'uinces
also sorved as
recruiting centres of labourers for Nalaya and
other colonial dependencies, but to a far lesa
extent. On the Coromandel coast, the rice harvests
depend mainly on the heavy rainfall, starting from
mid-september. In this part, where the peaøant lives
aolel
on the produce of bis fields, the w*rm dry
'J-
months just before the sowing, front March to June,
invariably bring unem1oymerxt
periode that the
It was during such
nigration Officials of Ceylon
or Malaya received the greitest numbers of applicants.
Thus it is hira1y an exaggeration to say that the
inclement climate and the agrarian economy of
Indian society
1ayed their part in the movement
of labourers from India to Malaya. This was because
a large percentage of the population depended on
agriculture, but since it was subjected to violent
seasonal fluctuations, the Indian peasants were
.
19
provided work for only a third cl the year. Fox' the
rest, they had to live on their wits. Duxing serious
economic risks in adverse season
the peasants were
all the more anxious to depart.
L. Dudley Stamp'e analysis conveys the
right picture when he emphasizes that the uncertainty
of the monsoon is characterized as "the biggest single
factor influencing life in Thdja"2J-
opinion is
reverberated in Jasper H. Stembridge's boo
II
Tt
In no other region oI similar
size do so great a number of people
depend for their prosperity on climatic
OiiTT
The irregularity o
rainfall has been responsible
for making India one c
the worlds most famine-
ridden areas. It is crystal clear that from a
geographical point of view1 the stage has been set
for frequent famines resulting from unexpected
droughts and floods. Thus Nature played her part
in the exodus of Indian labourers oversea
This
caza best be seen from the actual conditions that
prevailed along the Coromandel coast, particularly
the districts of Triclainopoly,
anjore,
hingleput
South Arcot and Negapatam, where the number of
emigrants was the largest. The heavy rainfalls of
November and tecember1 ou which the harvests of
these districts relied, were less regular than the
summer rainfalJ.s. In autunni1 the Coromandel peasant
often vainly awaited the dowupours which his crops
so direly needed
Then these crops were ruined by
13
excessive drought5, the jeasant
with ìo means of
making provision for his ill-fortune, was forced
to leave the country in search of bis daily brea
Sonietirnes, the peasant would set out at once; sometimes
he would try to borrow in order to tide hirn o'ver until
better harvests in the following year.
That the monsoon climate of India had
influenced eniigration from the country cannot be
denied. A "Sood monsoon" had meant, as it still means,
at least sufficient food for the people, but a "bad
monsoon" had meant famine, in the literal sense,
over larger or smaller areas
involving death from
staz'vation, migration and sometimes actual depopu1atio
David M. Figart has summarised it succinctly:
"With a poor monsoon, India experiences
a famine, and 1our must emigrate to
earn a living."
All the problems of overpopulation that
attended Indian society were reinforced by the
disastrous changes brought in by the Industrial
Revolution, which bestowed on
rit&in the economic
14
benefits of being the 'Workshop of the
especially during the latter half of the nineteenth
century. On the other hand, the path of the Industrial
Revolution in India was strewn with niseries and
sufferings. It is debatable whether the responsibility
for this should be borne by foreign rule in India, as
has been put forward by Indian public opïnion1 which
blanies the English for the widespread unemployment
prevalent in the society at that time. The iuglish,
however, perceive that unemployment and miseries
arose from the persistence in antiquated methods
in rural districts which they could not reform fast
enoug
It is difficult to draw the line between
these two arguments: each side has its own reasons.
But it serîes well to remember that the anguish and
wretchedness of the Indian peasant, whose source of
livelihood was deprived by the introduction of
machinery, thereby forcing him to flee from hi6
rative lnd1 is a 1iing testimony of the bad effects
of the Industrial Revolution.
it is true that Indian economy could
not escape the fateful effects of the Industrial
Revolution in Jglan? India was transformed from
a manufactuiug power to that of a market for the
supply of raw materials and the consumption of
British manufactures, in order to meet the industrial
and commercial needs of Englan9 Irior to the
nineteenth Century, India had supplied the markets
of Asia and. Europe with a number of manufactured
goods. There had been small peasant industries, on
which in former days, the 1arer could rely to support
himself during the three or four months of yearly
unemployment. Indian workmanship and Indian manufactures
commanded a wide market: carpentry arid stone cutting,
furniture and boat-building, working in iron and
coppernietals, gold and silver fìliree work, wood-carving
arid bronze work, pottery and embroidery. Spinning and
weaving and other domestic crafts heiped the Indian
peasants to suppleient the income derived from czops.
at eoon these cottage industries and handicrafts were
16
dislocated, with nothing to take their place. No
large-scale industries weze set up to absorb the
surplus population that the land could not support?1
In olden days1 the Indians claim, each
house hed its spinning wheels,
ut due to the setting
up of factories, and the subordination of Indian
interests to the needs of the paramount powe
these hd disappeareL Thus many were deprived in
a very few years of the chief source of their
livelihood. The suppression oÍ' an additional source
of revenue further diminished the already feeble
resistance of the ai1 family during the critical
mouths of the year; and the peasants were even more
fully exposed to the trials of the climate and
thereby hastened their flight to other lands. Eexe,
it can be argued that expanding large-scale induetries
and factories should offer much employment to these
peasants, but the population W&B growing faster
than the pace of development. The industrialization
that took place in India did not help to ease the
17
population pressure, as it was piecemeal and
unplanned. The
rcportion of the population
employed in industries was less than one per cent.
Besides, the call of factory industry was not at
first heard in this environment3
Certain Ceatures of Indian society also
must be taken into cognisance when considering
the causes for ]ndian emigration to !a1aya. One of
these was the progressive subdivision of holdings.
As customs akin to primogeniture had been exceedingly
rai'e in India, the death of a peasant would be
followed by the division o± his holding among hiG
heirs according to ordinary law1 whether Hindu or
Mosler In Mogul tintee, there was room for a family
to
expande
but when the productive laud was already
fully occupied, expansion wae no larger possible.
The original holding had to feed a gradually increasing
number of mouths. The result was necessarily a
progzesøive increase in the number of uneconomic
holdings, that is to say, holdings which could not
yield a livelihood to the persons who worked them.
In such a case
the peasants would try to borrow
to make ends meet, until credit was exhausted.
At such a stage, the solutiou would either be a
descent to the ranks of crtiina1s or emigration
abroad.
In certain Indian villages1 the power
that the Mirasdars held sway over the peasants
and farm labourers, would be responsible for the
exodus of emigrants from India. This was common in
four districts of the Coromandel Coast: Trichinopoly,
Tanjore, South Arcot and Chingleput, where1 it has
been pointed out before, the number of emigrants
was the largest. In this part, the Mirasdars claimed
to have special pri-ileges over all village lands,
both those that were still unoccupied as well as
those which they cultivated or where they resided5
One would surely notice the morai. influence of the
Mii'asdars in the village. There was no gainaaying
the will of the Nirasdars, w]ao would terrify the
peasants by holding over their heads the fear of
ejection. They usually combined together and
threatened them into accepting such work and
pay as suited them. Although actual ejection was
perhaps not very frequent, yet theix threatening
attitude made the workers' position very insecure.
The labourers were completely dependent upon the
Mirasdars, who could exercise their right of
seizure in the whole district. Sire1y whenever
the peasants found any loopholes, they would
certainly jump into them, so as to flee frani this
oppression.
A pernicious form of debt-slavery which
existed in the Indian villages should also be
considered when tracing the origin of Indian
emigration overseas. Iebt would be all the more
formidable, since the creditor would usually be
the chief land-owner or leading man in the village.
The labourer could hardly be able to repay the
ever-increasing debt be owed; and hence, the debt
bound the 1aboirer to his employer
nd the fariner
to his ]ancl].ord for life. Gradually the labourer
would become the farm servaiit, whoni his master
feci, but rio longer paid a wage. Bound over to his
master1 under this system, the peasant could not
leave the field, although the fruit of his labour
was food that coula just barely keep him
nd his
family alive. If the farm was sold, the debtor-farmer
would be sold along with the 1and
and. his debt
would be transferred to the new owner. These debts
would also be valid in the oase of the debtor's
sonst and the creditor would exercise arbitrary
control over his debtors, so that the peasants would
live in a state of slavery. The labourer was practically
36
bound to do whatever his creditor wanted, to grow
whatever area was ordered and take whatever price
was offered. It is true that these labourers had
resort to British Civil Courts, but in practice very
:rew suits reached the Civil Courte. The reasons, in
my opiiion
are; the Indian peasant was to ignorant
21
;c
o to law, and he would be tied down by caste
prejudice, wbich looked uou legal action against
the chief marx as almost iniquitous. If he had the
courace to
o to law against the Mirasdar, even if
legally
justi±'ied1
be wrn1d immeaiately be banned
by the whole community, and consequently, would
not be able to find any work in the village. The
emphasis is to be found in Professor Srinivas's
article tiThe Social System of a Mysore Village",
which points out:
"A man who does go to the urban law
. courts is thought to be flouting the
authority of the elders and therefore
acting against the 8olidarity of the
village."3?
So the laboumr would be tied down for life to the
Nirasdar, and his ttslaveryhl would be equally binding
on all his chi1then
In the wake of slavery, came
poverty, for his creditor would only reward him for
Jais labour euch that would enable hirt and his family
to live from hand to mouth.
:TrtabJ.e to find werk in
the neighbourhoød, where evezyone knew of his debt
22
tnd hence, 'bondage', the only remedy lay in his
being able to flee beyond the limits of the Mirasdar's
influence. So the labourer went oU to start a new
life in a new land, as has been put forward by
E. Eennery:
....... rubber plantations overseas,
the Taniil peasant finds a refue1
temporarily or permanently1 from hunger
and unemp1oymen, far from slavery under
tTQ
the Mirasdar.30
The difference of payzxient in India and
Malaya for labourers should spring to mind when
tracing the origins of Indian emigmtion to Malaya.
There is no doubt that the wages received by labourers
in Malaya were higher than those in India. It has
been pointed out that in India, since employment
might not last much more than half the year, the
average wage throughout the year might not exceed
¿f to
annas a das. In South India, with half of
the population, the average earnings per family of
five amounted to only 2.5 ann.as per dab? In ialaya,
a farm baud's average pay a*ounted to frodi eight to
23
ten tnnas a da9 It cn be arue
that the cost of
living might be higher in Malaya than in India but
in the former place, the Indian labourer had the
chance to save money and to remit them to his kith
and kin in his native place, although at the expense
of his daily diet.
Owing to overpopulation in India1 the
tnclement climate, the decline of peasant industries,
the land system with its petty subdiisionz, the
uncertainty of obtaining work, the exactions of the
Mirasdars, and the low daily wages, the Indian
labourers were leading a parody of life, and thus
the oconniic pressure to entigate ws sticn. Besides,
.
4i2.
as 1r. S. Chandrasekhar points out,
f migratory
movements between diffezent i'egions are to be analysed,
there are always the "pull" of prosperity from leas
crowded areas, and the "push' of poverty from over-crowded
areas. After all,
Migrations, unlike water, flow from a
blighted region of low level o1 living
to a prosperous one of high level of living."
2
There must hare been a "push" of poverty in India,
for the economic pressure to niigrate was indeed
strong, and similarly in Malaya, there must have
been the tpU11li of prosperity, as there was the
growing demand for Indian labour. Indeed it is not
the well-off or the economically stable individual
that seeks to leave his own country ior another
It has been well written:
"iigration implies a desire to better
one's economic position or social status
or escape from onie undesirable feature
of the home country, be it religious
intolerance, rac1 ?ersecution or economic
disinheritance."
Migration is a flflowTl which can also be
compared with that which exists where there are
difrencee in atmospheric pressure, and in such a
case the air of the higher-density area tends to
flow into the area of lower density. But the flow
of people from India to Malaya was never a "free"
flow governed only by economic conditions of high
and low preasure; it was partii influenced by ethnic,
25
social, and political factor
It is no wonder
that Dr. V. Thompson has written:
"Starvstlou condJtions chronic in India
have caused emigration of workers to
the underpcpulted
richer regions
of Southeast Asia." 0
Thus, the stage had been set for the emigration
of labourers freni India, by the prevailing economic
conditions. What occurred in Malaya, which remains
to be told, can be regarded as the "working out of
the draina" after the stage had been set.
Conditions in Malaya: The establishment
of British protection in the Malay States, and the
new law and order which came with British protection,
paved the way for the further development and
capita]ization of the tin industry, and the extension
of plintations to cover buge area of land which had
previously- been covered with virgin jungle. The
introduction of British protection in the states of
Perak, Selangor, and Sungei Ujong in the 1870's and
in Pahang in
the 1880t5 started a fresh wave of
26
the influx of innnigrants from India as wel]. as from
China. There had been internecine feues among the
Malay ciiefa, and there had been the growing prob)em
of Chinese faction fights betwecn the Ghi Hins and
the Hai Sans? The disorder had leen so serious that
the tin supplies of the Malacca an.d Singapore merchants
were threatened. With
the richest part of the (Malay
Peninsula) in the hands of the lawless and turbulent"
and with Ttrobbery
battle and murder'11 particularly
i_n the state of Selangor, there was definitely no
need for immigrant labour! It bad to wait until the
establishment of the
ritisb Residential System,
brought into Perak by the Pangkor Enaement, January
187k, and. aleo in Selangor and Sun.ei U'jong, as well
as in Pahang in 1888. Again in 1895, the nine Minangkabau
states agreed to form the Confederation of Negri Seibilan
under British protection. Once more, Perak, Selangor,
Pahang and Negri Sembilan were united to form the
Federated Malay States in July 1896. The introduction
o:t Britisb administration ushered in a period of
27
comparatjve peace. This together with the
amalgamation in 1896, played no little part in the
entry of immigrants into the country.
Professor B. Harrison makes the following
epha sis:
T1The emergence of the plural society of
South-east Asia in its nodern fora has
been clse1y 1inked with the expansion
of Western administration, commerce and
capital during the last hundred years1
and especially sinCe 1870. Chinese and
Indian immigrants were attracted to most
South-east Asian countries by the
opportunities for material advancement
offered by expending money economies
combined with stable administrations."
Thus, British protection provided the security that
fcrein capital sought. With foreign oapital1 there
was a growing demand for labour, entailed in the
de'ueloment of the country by means of railways,
roads and buildings, as well as in the expansion
of plantations. Cheap labotzr and capitalistic entezprises
usually go togetbà
and luckily with the investment
of capital in Malaya, there was the supply of cheap
Indian labour to cope with it, for withoit it, the
vast territories whic' were brought into British
possession would be use1ss. Without cheap Indian
labour, the British imperialists would not have
achieved what they did in Malaya! Again, it is
hardly an exaggeration to say that without the
skilled white managerial group to direct it, immigrant
labour would not have achieved what it did in Malaya!
The economic set-un oI Malaya was mainly
responsible for the influx of Indians into the countr9
From 187k, the economic policy in each State, under
British Residents, was initiated by them. They believed
that prospective capitalist investuents should be
encouraged by the development of agricultural activity,
as was also believed in by the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, shown in bis desatch to the Governai'
of the Straits Settlements in 1895:
The point of greatest inportance
appears to me as to my predecessor, to be
the encouragement of agriculture, in order
that the prosperity of these states1 which
has hitherto depended so largely upon the
plentiful supplies of tin, may stil]. be
aeeured, if and when, their mineral
resources in course of years show signs
of depletion."51
The colonists were firnily convinced that the future
cil Th1aya lay in the deve1onent of crops, esecia11y
rubber
for export. The climate and the soil froni
the beginning, suited the deve1onient of tropical
plantations. flence plantations were established with
amazing rapidity: these plantations provided an
outlet for the settlers' surp1u
capital. It is true
that the labour demand was partly met by the Indian
convicta who were transported to Singapore, Penang
and Malacca when the latter acted as penal stations
from
18252 Eut in 1873 the Straits Settlements
penal stations were finally closed, and the convicts
were removed to the
ndanian Island
With the removal of convict labour1 the
demand for a substituted form of labour became urgent,
especially when the
overnment embarked on ambitious
programmes of economic development after about the
mid-nineteenth century, in the føtm of road and
railway construction. This econoriic development oÍ
the country was made possible by au Imperial loan
30
of £500,000, which had been granted in 1899.
In order to make these ventures more profitable
than older established areas, the labour provided
must be cheap, and there is no doubt that Indian
labour was cheap.55
It is a commonplace about the docility,
and the capacity for labouring in a tropical climate,
of the Indian immigrants into Malaya. Perhaps it is
mainly because of this characteristic that Indian
labourers were particularly favoured by the Government
and employers. When compared with Chinese or Javanese
labourers, the Indian labourers became indispensable.
It was felt that the Chinese were inclined to be
disorderly, and cost more in police supervi8ion.6
This the British learnt only too well, through
experience in the Malay States, where Chinese faction
fights were common. ?urthermore, the Chinese preferred
working in tin mines1 owned and managed by their
countrymen, and were not inclined to serve under
alien employers. On the other hand, the local Halays
31
could not be recruited as labourers, for they were
accustomed to a life of peasaiit farning RU
fishing.
To quote the words of a recent Report:
"For many years there has been a reluctance
on the part of the Halays to resort to a
wage economys They have preferred to live
in their kampons,57and only work to the
extent they corisi1ered necessary in oraer
to live.U50
They preferred their independent way of life of
farming to the dull routine of manual labour on rubber
plantations. Therefore, this disinclination on the
part of the Malays forced the employers to look
elsewhere for their labour force. Javanese labour
was difficult to recruit, due to the restrictions
imposed by the Dutch authorities on their emigration.
In addition many of them were physically unfit,
while it was said that they were hard to manage.
In their last resort, the planters and
employers tried to turn to the
iropean Continent
for a supply of cheap labour, for by this time the
abolition of slavery was a well-established fact.
It had been abolished in the British
ire in 1835.
32
But the question of obtaining a supply o! cheap
labour was ruled out, beeause it would cost too
!nuch money to recruit labour from such a distance;
and, because white labour was not only expensive
but definitely inipossible to recruit for plantation
work in the tropics due to the unsuitable climate
and the unhealtby conditions. So the only alternative
was Indian labou-.
Altogether, the Indian was perhaps the
most satisfactory type of labourer,
or he was not
too ambitious and was easily manageable9He had none
of the self-reliance of the Chinese,
O
but he was
"the most useful Asiatic to the European.6l Re could
be easily imported, since he was a British subject,
for controlled migration could only occur between
regions under the sanie government or those held by
-
,
governments of the same nationality.
62
But the
aU-important factor was that the Indian labourer
was docile, and would bend to the whims and fancies
o
the European managers and planters on the rubber
33
p1ntations. This was further euhnced by the fact
that most of the Taniil labourers who migrated to
Malaya weie of low caste
Paaayachis and
ounans.6
Pariahs, Pallas,
The low caste Indians
usa11y formed the labouring population of the
southern districts of Madras, the recruiting centre
foz Malaya. These depressed classes were usually
relegated to the level of anina1s, and this tended
to deprive them of their initiative and self-respect.
Therefore this accounted for the docility of the
Indian immigi'ants :in Malaya.
It is interesting to account for the
presence of Indians in Malaya when it is widely
recognized that the migratory instinct was practically
non-existent in the Indian peasants whoa Dr. S. Chandrasek
calls the "stay-at-home" people, Besides the features
oÍ the Uindu joint family reidered the population
immobile.
The circunistances that droTe the Indian
peasant into exile must have indeed been very urgent.
Ze would wait until he was reduced to the very last anna,
3Lf
and then he would depart. It has been pointed out
that since the Indian was conservative, he drescied
to leave bis native land, for the peasant regarded
emigration with an overpowering sense of degradation.6
In this case, the planters in Malaya weibe he1ed by
the persuasions of agents and recruiters, known as
kananies', who were sent across to selected areas
in South India. These IÇananies generally did not
care for the welfare of the coolies as long as they
got a good conunission froni their employers. Henoe1
they would gire a very glowing description of the
new country wherein more wages could be earned by
each coolie for less work he might turn out
According
to the accounte given by the kanganies, the employers
would give the coolies food, clothing and houses to
live in for nothing; and the labourers would be given
wages if they woried, but york would be optional o
the part of the cooiies,6
ut the coolies would
find out that they had been cheated only when they
went to the estate, which, instead of being a paradise,
was really
a death tiap yawning to engulf the
.
.
surplus population of India."
68
Jt is easy to
understand why the kanganies were believed by the
Indian peasants, for as the proverb goes, "Distanoe
lends enchantment to the view', and besides, the
kanganies would dazzle their eyes with gold chains,
which they had accumulated out of the comniissions
paid to them by the employers. The kangany would
shine "like a tin-god clothed in gorgeous velvet
coat and lace turban, and bedecked with costly
jewels in his eaxs and îingers"6
could not help but believe
The poor coolies
in them. Thus emigration
to Malaya from India was not altogether a natural
procese: it was brought about to a considerable
extent by the persuasions of kanganies, by the
"artificial pressure of recruitment"7°
There was also the political reason which
acted as an impetus to Indian emigration to Malaya.
Governor Frederick Aloysius Weld, at a
meeting of
the Legi8latjve Council, held on 13th. October 1887,
36
$tatec3 that he had always tried to induce the
Indian Government to set aside unnecessary restrictions,
and to leave Indian Immigration as free as possible.
He bad succeeded in this endeavour, for he received
a communication informing him that the Governor-General
ii Council had agreed to his view. He continued in
the following manner:
UI anticipate consequently a considerable
increase of Immigrants from India, a
political advantage
to India, because
they relieve poverty-stricken districts;
to us, because it is advisable that, in a
country like this, the preponderance of
any one Lastern natioualit' should not be
excessive, and because the Indians are a
peaceable and easily governed race.TT?l
Governor Weld, in a desatch to the Secretary of
State, was more concise:
"I am also anxious for political reasons
that the great preponderance of the
Chinese over any other races in these
settlements, and to a lees marked degree
in some of the Native States under our
administi'ation, should be counterbalanced
as much as possible by the influx of
Indian and other nationalities."72
Therefore, the political advantages to be derived
fDom Indian immigration to Malaya was not completely
37
ignored.
There are two other reasons which influenced
the Indians to iigmte to Malaya. First of all, Malaya
was accessible by Eca routes during the tine of the
influx of Indians to Malaya. British Malaya, like
Burma, Ceylon, Mauritius, Fiji, the Caribbean and
st Africa received the most Indians, because they
were those accessible by sea routes, however distant.73
Again, India's mountain barrier, plus the in-hospitable
nature of the plateaus on the other side, had prevented
much emigration acroes the land borders. Approximately
99.6 per cent of Indian enhigration had gone to ports
in the British empire that were accessible by water.
That Malaya was accessible by sea, cannot be denied,
and hence the presence of Indians in the country.
Notwithstanding the various factors operating
in India and Malaya that acted as impetus to nigration,
there were some Indians who migrated just because
they wanted to follow their kith and kin. The writer
has the privilege of being takan to inteririew a certain
Pakkira
ngani, who is about 80 years of age, at
3eaport Estate, and be gave the following comment
upon being questioned why he came to Ma1aya:
TTI cante to Malaya not because of better
conditions, but I followed my parente.
We came from a village about 30 miles
of Panjore."
And at Sepang Estate1 Palani Kangani also stated
UI came to Malaya because my brother was
a kanganr, and sin.ce we can stay alive
here, we have continued to stay in this
For better or for worse, the Indians made
their way to Malaya, creating social and political
problems there. These were the problems of the
"plural society", a society in which "distinct social
orders live side by side, but separately, within the
same political unit."'5 The problems of the plural
society actually were not new in South-East Asia,
since the region has always formed "a kind of social
laboratory where much interaction betweezi diverse
peoples and cultures has taken piacest76 New economic
forces introduced in ?4alaya from the West have created
a cJeavage between the indigenous aria the irmiiirant,
letween th
traditional customs of the old way of
life and that of men "uprooted from their homelands
but unrooted in their adopted countries, thereby
creating the unbalanced plural society with its lack
of cohesion or common purpose."77
ko
Foo tnotes.
I
*
.
Malaya Consists of the Straits Settlements which
includes Singapore, Penang and Malacca, the Federated
Malay Stales which incj.ude5
Perak1
Selangor, Negri
Sembilan and Pahang aM the Unfederated Malay States
which includes Johore, Kedah, Ie1antan
Trengganu
and Penis.
.
.
.
'
Lini ICean S1,ew "The Chinese J-n
Ma1aye-a1
The Seed,
I, 2(Jaii. - Feb. 1961) p.1, Publication of Malaysian
Sociological Research Institute Ltd, Singapore.
3 8. Chanclrasekhar, Population and Planned Parenthood
in India, 1955, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London,
p.1.
k
Davis, The Population of India and Pakistan,
Princeton1
New Jersey', 1951, p.23.
LU. Moreland, India at the Death of kbar, London,
acmi11an , 1920 ,
6
p . 9.-22.
Moreland & AC. Chattenjee, A Short Hi5tor
of
India, Lonans, Green and Co., London 196, p.281.
7
D. Ghoh, PZeBsuZ-e of Population &
»oxaomic
ficiency
1+1
nIndia,
Couiicil of 7Jorld Affairs,
lJtiiversity Prese, 191f6, p.29. It ca
cford
1e seen that
dujng 1931-32, the average pezson in the U.S.A.
eaDued 22 times a
much as the average Indian; the
average Englishman 15 times and the average Japanese
J+,
8
tjes.
R. Nukerjee, Racesjands and Food, New York, ].9k6,
See S. Chaxidrasekhar's Hungry People arid
Lanes,
Londons
1954, Table 18, and Figure 53 of
Voz'1d Population:Past growth and Present Trends
thcford: Clarendon Press1 1936, p.269.
9
lo
D. Ghosh
. cit.
.i.
Eetween 1870 and 1930 the
increased by 31%
opu1ation of India
while that of
zrope minus Russia
was Go%, and of Japan was 113%. The groas increase
was very high for Liroe, so she sent out huge
numbers to other parts of the world as emigrants.
il
LP. P'airchild, "Optimum Population" in the
Proceediue of the World Populat&on, edited by
Margaret Sanger, London, i927, ».?,
k2
12
13
Lf
CMndrasekhar, op. c.t. p.23.
Nutrition, Oxford Paniphiet on Indian Afîciirs, p.15.,
D. Ghosh jn h.s work, Pressure of Popii1atori and
s.
Econcrniic Efficiency in India, compares the consumption
o±_ milk per head in India, which is 7 oz. with that
individual in the United Kingdom1
which is 39 cz., and that in Sweden and Finland,
which is more than 60 oz. p.59.
of the average
15
Davis, op. cit.
p.35.
R. Dutt, The Economic History of India in the
Victorian Age, London
17
Murray,
Asia1
1956, p.vi.
No.5, The Study Map Note Books
Series, London, 195k, p.19.
i8
Dennery, AS1R1B Te,ng Millions: and its
Problenas for the
West1
Jonathan Care, London,
1931, p.202.
19
Kondapi, Thians Overseas,
1838-19k9,
Indian
Council of W'orld Affairs, Oxford University Press,
p.k.
20
Sir John Stracbey', India, ItaAdminiatration and
¿f3
Prores, p.k17.
21
L. Du1ey Ztaztp, Asia
Geography, 2nd
22
an Economic and Regional
ed., New York1 1938, p.199.
.
Jasper H. Stenbride, The
Worlds
A General Hegona1
Geogra, Oxford University Press, 1953, p.272.
23
Davis, ïn his work, The Popilatiou of India
pd Pakistan, however warns that the tazigi1ity of
geographic facts should not mislead ts into exaggeratiig
the importance of the irregularity of rainfall in
causin; famines, and thus the outflow of Indian
euiigants. He outline5 the reasons which had contributed
to frequent famines in India: the agrarian economy of
India wch 1ad made rainfall the main eource of
wealth; the poverty of the people which bad deprived
them of any surplus to tide them over agricultural
disaster; poor transport and local isolation which
means that an afflicted region could not get Buccour
from other regions; the feudal type of conimercial
capitalism, which means that famine condition8 were
exacerbated rather than helped by the operation of
¿f ¿f
the price system; the scarcity of irrigation projects
did not protect India from the irregularities of
rainfall; and finally political disorder, caste
barriers and cz1tura1 diversity had prevented the
large-scale planning necessary for the prevention
of fama.ne.
24
25
26
J. Dennery1 op. cit. p.2O3
W.H. Moreland & A.C. Chatterjee, op. cit. p.k.
David M. Figert, The Plantation Rubber Industry
in the Middle East, Government Printing Office1
Washington1 19251 p.117.
27
David Thomson, Europe Since Napoleon, Longnans,
Green & Co. Ltd., Thir6 impression, 1960, London.
p.157.
28
E. Dennery, op. cit. p.2O5.
29 c. iCondapi, o. cit. P.2.
30
L.C. Knowles,
;Enpire, Vol I
31
32
onomic 3eve1op5ent of the Overseas
p.53-5k.
Chandrasekhar1 op. cit. 195k, p.169.
.s. Sandhu, "Some Pre1iinary Observations of the
Origins and Characteristics of Indian Migration to
Malaya, 1786-1957", Papers On Malayan History, Papers
submitted to the First International Conference of
South-East Asian Historians, Singapore, January
1962e P.k3.
33 w.ii. Moreland & AC. Chatterjee, op. cit. p.387.
ibich p.385
,5
E Dennery, op. cit. P.208. The author points out
that the claims of those Nirasdars rested on agreements
made in the past in Tanjore and South Arcot, owing to
the dismembernent of the old kingdón' of Tanjore,
where the dignitaries have retained only their territorial
influence at Chingleput and
richinopoly, where they
still possessed certain definite rights on the cultivated
soil, because it was intensie1y colonized by the
members of their caste.
36
3?
Moreland & A.C. Cbatterjee, Op. cit. p.386.
Sz'inivas, "The Social System of a Mysore
Village", The Economic Weekly of Bombaj, West Bengal
Government Press, l95.
6
38
E
Dennery
cp. cit. p.2fl-212.
39 David M. Fiart, op. cit. p.117.
ko
k3
L Derniery, op. cit. p.217.
An article in the Malay Mail, Jaivary 30th. 1913
points cut that the average cost of living for an
average workman was two and a half tines as much
as it was in Irdia, and that if an ordinary coolie
was told in India that it cost two and a half dol1ars
i.e. (Rs. k-8)
or his rice alone, without nentioning
the high and exorbitant prices for other foodstuffe,
he would not think of emigrating from his native
place, p.9.
k2
Ohandraseithar, op. cit. 1955, p.30.
¿f3
ibid 1955, p.30.
1ff
k
s. Cbandrasekhar, op. cit. 1954, p.188.
Hertzler, The Crisis in World Population,
University of
k6
Nebraska1
Press, 1956, p.].k.
Thompson, Labour Problems in Southeast ABJ.R1
New Haven, 19k7. p.1.
k7
E. Hall, I Biztory of Sout]-st &sia,
¿f 7
Nacmillari & Co. Ltd., London, 1958, p.k73-k89.
1f&
Earri8on, South-East Asia, A Short History,
Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London, 1957, p.221
49
N. Gangulee, Indians in the Ekipire Overseas,
New India Publishing House Limited, 1947, j.160.
K Ja3
"Indjai
:Eïiuiiigration into Malaya
1910-1941", Unpublished DA. (Honours) Thesis,
History Department, University of Singapore, 1959,
p.3.
51
iroceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits
Settlement, 1895, No.36, p.0127.
52
Ronald St. J. Eraddell: "Crime
Its Punishment
and Prevention" in W. Nakepeaoe, et al. (eds.),
One Hundred Years of Singapore, Vol. I (London, 1921)
p.283.
53 Major J.F.A. McNair, Prisoners Their Own Warders,
Westminster 1899, p.143-6.
5k
Legislative Cotnci1 Proceedings, 1900, p.0117,
Straits Settlements.
55
Iç.A. Neelaiandba, Indian Proble*5 in (a1aya:
A Brief Survey i
Offje
6
Relation to
niratio, The Inc1iai
Kuala Lunipur, 1938, p.20.
epor
of: Commission of Inquiry into the State
o! labour in the Straits Settienients and Protected
Native States, 189Q, Sirgapore, paragraph k51.
57
58
is the Malay word for village.
Animal Re:port of the Labour Departnent, 19k?
Nalayan Union.
59
avid M. Pigart
:Ln the
60
The Plantation Rubber Inthst
idd1e Eas:,
1925f
p.17k.
Viieland, "PopuJ.ation of Malaya: A Study in
Human Migration"1 The Geohical Review, 193k,
Vol.2k, p.6?.
61
singapore Daily Times, 29.f.l8?k, P3, Col.1.
V. Thompson, op.cit. New Haven, 19 7
63
N. Jagatheesan,
.
p.2.
.
Immigrat.on of Indian Labour
into Malaya, 1867l9l0" unpublished B.A.(Honours)
Thej1 History Department, Univereity of Singapore,
193k1
6k
p.12.
Dr. S. Chandrasekhar, Ruugr
People and Bpty
Lands1 London, 193k, p.16-J.79.
The Hindu joint family of old was at once a corpotate
religious, economic and social unit. The sons, even
when they grew up to manhood and married1 did not
leave the parental household. See also C.F. Andrews,
True India (London 1939). He observes that: "at
has seemed always strange to me in m,r ignorance of
what an upbringing means in such a joint Thntily is
that there bave not been more pioneers in the past
who have gone far and wide seeking adventure, while
those dependent on them remained behind1 well looked
after under the paternal care of the head of the
fanily, for anxiety concerning wife and children
must inuiensely be lessened when they are left in
such safe keeping. It
ay be the case that the
adventurous side of human character is softened
by the continual give and take which the joint
family system requires. The individual initiative
becomes weakened at the very time that the gentler
side of life is strengthenecV'. p.251
50
E. Deinery, op
66
cit. p.211.
had Coolie, overseer.
According to the account given by a corresrondent
or the
zrita Bazar Patrika, a newspaper of Calcutta,
and quoted in the Malay Mail, January 30th. 1913.
68
69
70
The Selangor Records, Misc. 3886/9f, No.389/9k.
The Nalay Mail, January 30th. 1913, p9.
Dr. Lanka Sundram, "The Internat,ona1 Aspects of
Indian i»iigration" Asiatic Review, Oct. 1930, p.k.
71
Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits
Settlements, 1887, p.C199.
72
Despatch No.397 from Straits Settlements to Secretary
of State, September 24, 1887.
73
7k
c. Davis, op. cit. p.99.
Due to the active help of' Mr. KR. P. Perumal,
Research Officer of the National Union of Plantation
Workers, Peta.ling Jaya, Kuala Lumpur, who acted as
my interpreter.
75 B.
arriaon, op. cit. :p.xi, quoting G.S. Furnivall,
Netherlatds India, 1939.
51
ibid. p.221.
B. Harrison, op. cit. p.222.
52
CHAPTER II
RISTO1Y OF IÌDIAI flMIGRATIOL
Striki.ng Features of Indian Immigration:
One salient featuze that has to be
considered in an analysis or emigration to Malaya
from India is that in the present century it was
mainly a "coolie exodus'
Labourers forned the
main bu:k of the Indian migrants to Malaya, in
order to satisÍy the urgent needs of planters and
enLployers intent to expand thdustries and plantations.
In the words of Mahajani:
ITThe emigration of Indian labour to Malaya1
therefore explains almost the entire
2
story of the Indian commmunity in Malaya."
Phis was in sharp contrast to the early Indian
migrants who made their way to Malaya. Indian traders
Ra wel]. as Brahiiins and ionks and literate adventurers
journeyed to the Malay world, and thus brought the
ifindu religion, Sivaite ideas o
with them.3 I
royalty and Buddhism
this way, India influenced the spiritual
and. the material life of the Malais in the earls
53
centuries. But from the nineteenth Century onwa.rds
the Indian labourers began to emigrate on a large
scale under the indenture system, to work on the
coffee and sugar plantations in the Straits Settlement8.
This characteristic £eattzre O
ricoolie exodu&t
3y
adhered to Indian emigratioi from niodern times1
when the Indian emigrant wa
afl unlettered labourer setting outk
to sweat arid live on an aliente estate".
Another striking feature to be noticed
about Indian Immigration to Malaya is that most of
the Indian migrants came to the country with a
fervent hope of returning to their home1and.
They
had no intention of ivaking Malaya their permanent
home. They usually stayed for three years, and
after accumulating a large sum, they would return
home. A. saying, which is attributed to a Tamil
authoress of the first century of the Christian
era describes that they
"Speed on the waves of the ocean in search
of wealth".
51f.
It was only after the l93Os that some of them
began to regard Malaya as their home. To quote
the words of another writer:
"The average period of an Indian coolie's
stay in British Malaya has been estimated
at about three years."6
The third outstanding feature of Indian
imnhigration to Malaya is that the different Indian
ethnic groups had different ways of immigration.
The Tanlil usually migrated alone to Malaya, and if
conditions in the new land were favourable, then
hi wife and family would soon follow. On the other
hand, the Telegu migrated straight away with his
whole family, including the grand-mother. With Telegu
migration, there was the feature of the established-family
asset straight
away.7
The next main feature of Indian 1mngration
to Malaya is that it was primarily a South Indian
phenomenon,8 as the majority of the Indian immigrants
came from the Madras Presidency. They were mainly Tamile,
followed by Malayalees, Telugus and others. This was
due to the fact that the
ecruitin
agents carried
on their work in the South. They did not want to
penetrate inland, because the further they went,
the more would be their expenses. As a rest1t, they
concentrated on the main districts of Taujore,
Thichinopoly, Madura, Salem and Coinibatcre. Again,
that there was the preponderance o
South Indians
among the Indian migrants to Malaya can be attributed.
to the policy pursued by the government o±' India.9
When the government of the 1'ederated Malay States
approached the Government of India to regulate the
tree flow of labour from North India to Malaya, the
reply given by the government o
India was that it had
I',..l* nO reason to believe that the labour
opulatiou of South India, which owing to
the circuiiistanoes of climate and race, is
the natural source of supply for the Straits
Settlements and the Federated Malay States,
is not ample to meet all requirements"1°
owever, by the 1930's, some North Indians in faCt
went to Malaya: they were mainly Punjabis, and were
predominantly engaged in commercial and. financial
occupations.
56
Another significant feature of Indian.
immigration to Malaya is that the novement was
mainly monosexual
males predominating)2 The
reason was that the majority of Indian nigrants
were 'birds of paseage'1 and therefore had no
intention of brìning thefr womenfolk along. Besides,
Indian female emigration was hindered by a number
of soolo-economic handicaps, due to the inferior
JO8itiOfl of wonien in Indian eociety. For exaniple, in
1911, there were only 308 Indian females to every
1,000 males in Malaya, while in 192]. the proportion
was 405:1,000 and in 1931 the proportion was f82:11OOO.
The n.ext remarkable factor to be noticed
about Indian migration to Malay-a is that the majority
of the Indian migrants were of low caste
- Pariahs,
Pallas, Padayachis and Gourdans. In India, these
depressed classes were usually relegated to the level
of animals, and when they canse to Malaya, they were
looked down upon by the Chinese as well as by the
other communities in Malaya. In the words of LV Sovani,
?TThe greater part of the TaJ2ii]. labour
population is of low caste' consisting
as it does of Pariahs, and Pallas, but
there are also a large number of Vellalas
and Amak."-3
It should also be noticed that emigration
from India to Malaya was predominan.tly a hot weather
feature,
1k
because the number of enugrants would be
highest during the months when the weather was hot,
especially during the months from April to June, and
there would be few emigrants from October to March.
Again, Indian migration to Malaya tooc the form it
did only under the aegis of the British.'5 The
circumstances created by the extension of British
rule facilitated the free flow of labour from India
to Malaya.
Another characteristic of Indian immigration
to Malaya that cannot be denied is that it was
accompanied by a great deal of legislative interference.
In the words of a Straits Settlements Legislatiue
Councillor in 1898:
If we make a p±lrimage back through the
desert oi debate and discussion, we
find the route mapped out for us by
bleaching skeletons of its predecessors:
mended Ordinances1 suspended Ordinances,
repealed Ordinances
Ordinances
which strangled themselves by the
conipl.exities and incongruities oI
construction ....... Ordinances ...... o!
every sort and description, except indeed
such Ordinances as would satisfy the
requirements of the employer ad the
necessities of the Jabourer.hhlO
It was only in l87 that Indian immigration was
regulated by any law. flue to overcrowding in the
ships carrying iimnirants across the Bay of Bengal,
the Indian Government in l87 and i89 passed laws
regulating this passenger traffic. These two
Eaøtments enjoined that all those ships witboit
licence could only cazry passengers from India in
a proportion of one passenger to every four tons
of burden, while licensed vessels were allowed
"to carry provisions according to an approved scale.'
This only had the effect o
raising the expense
connected with importing labour, and hence the
employers bad. to pay more. Therefore the length of
the Contract to be served by the labouxers was
increased from one year to eigbteeu montbs
and
later to two years. Under Indian Act No.XIII of
1859
An Act to prcide for the punishzent
of breaches of contract by Artificers, WorIften
and Labourers in certain Cases'
all labourers
who neglected to perform work could be punisbed by
a penalty of three nionths hard labour, on condition
that they either performed the contract or repaid
the advance made by the employers to finance their
passages.
In 1867, the Stiaïts Settlements ceased
to be part of British India and became a Crown
Colony. The law therefore, which made it illegal
for Indian labourers to emigrate to places outside
India, applied naturally to the Straits Settlements.
When this was realized, the Act of 1872 was passed
to remedy it and emigration to the Straits was
resumed. Following this, there were the Straits
Settlements Ordiiance No.X of 1876 ani Indian lot
No.V of 1877. These two laws controlled Indian
immigration to the Straits until iSSk. As a result,
emigration from India was restricted to certain
specified ports. At each of these ports, there
would be two Government officials: the
iigration
Agent appointed by the Straits Settlements Government
and the Protector of Emigrants appointed by the
Government of Madras. Depots were to be set up at
each port, and they were under the supervision of
the Protector. There was the safeguard made to ensure
that each recruit should be taken before a magistrate
who would find out whether the emigrant was going
voluntarily or not. The contract was signed in India,
which specified minimum wages and. maximum term of
wo1k. Safeguards were also niade to ensure proper
treatment on board ship.
18
In 1882, 'The Labonr Contracts Ordinance'
was passed. This Influenced unwritten(verbal) contracts
and written contracts. Verbal contracts must not be
made for zore than one month: they could be ended
6].
at any time by either party after one month's
notice
or without notice if the party ending the
contract gave one nonth's wages in lieu of the
notice. Henceforth, written contracts were to be
signed in the presence of either a nagistrate or
a justice of the peace. They could be terminated
by mutual consent1 It was also this Ordinance which
put an end to the 'joint and several' system.19
The next imortaut piece of legislation
was passed in i8Sk in the Straits Settlerents which
was the 'ludian Immigration Ordinance'. This
Ordinance was meant to replace the 1876 law. Under
this Ordinance, the immigrant labourer signed no
contract until he arriTed in the Straits Settlements.
A similar law was introduced in Selangor by a Selanor
Order in Council in October 188k. It was this 'Indian
Immigration
nactment' of 188k which replaced ttbe
Selangor Indian Immigration Enactment 1882. 120
Perhaps the best comment on these numerous
legislative interference is contained in the following
62
words ot Mr. J.M.B. Vermont when be wrote to the
Acting Resident Councillor of Penang from Province
Wellesley:
tiThese frequent changes in the laws
between employer and laboi.zrer do away
with the confidence that should exist
in an agricultural country. The first
Labour Ordinance was the Indian Act
13 of 1859, then carne Ordinance IX of
1875, which was repealed by that of I
of 1876 which was superseded by
Ordinance V of 1876, finally coming
into force as Ordinance XII of 1876;
then came
dinance I of 1882, then
Ordinance V of i884, repealing all
others so far as it affected statute
immigrants, so that from 189 to i88k
we have had five Ordinances to reu1ate
labour: all dealing with hours of
labour, absence from work, value of
unexpired terms and rates of wages in
a variety of ways.1121
At the beginning of the present Century
there was passed tThe Indian Immigration Enactment,
190k'. This substituted a definite term of 600 dayB
labour for the previous two-year coutract, and fixed
wages for unindentured labourers on a rupee basis.
It forbade the employment of iìadentu'ed labourers
Qn estates where conditions were unsuitable. It was
from this time onwards that it was compulsory for
estates to have hospitals. Next caine the !Taniil
Immigration Fund Eziactment, 1907' which was
instrumental for setting up the Indian Imigration
Committee arid the Iri.dian Izn2fligration Fund. This
Ordinance was re-exacted by Ordinance No.XV of
1908, auci in 1909, and again in 1911 and 1912 it
was amended. Part VI of the Labour Code of 1912
dealt with the Indian Inmiigration Committee and
the
und22
In 1922, the Indian Government passed
the Indian Imigration Act in order to regulate the
emigration of Indians to Malaya. In response to
this
a new Labour Code was introduced in both
the 'ederated Malay States and the Straits Settlements
in 1923. This code provided free repatriation of
labourers under certain conditions and estate
nurseries. It prohibited Indian child labour and
set up estate schools.23 It abolished all penalties
for labour offences, and provided payment of maternity
6k
benefits to fernab
labourers and a 8tandard wage
for all labourers. The Indian Enigration Act of
1922 ws on attempt to consolidate and renovate
previous regulations and marked a partial transition
froni laissez-faire to a much stricter form of legal
control on the part of the Indian Government. In
1887, the Indian Government had removed all restrictions
on the emigration of non-indentured labourers to Malaya.2k
But once again it tried to regulate emigration in
order to protect its own nationals. Under the Act1
there was to be an agent of the Government of India
in Malaya to look after the welfare of the Indian
immigrants there. Accordingly the first Agent wa
appointed in 1925
This Jct remained in operation
until 1938, when assisted unskilled labour emigration
was banned. In the words of lingeley Davis:
"The Act of 1922 ..., had the effect of
taking care of the question of fnrther
emigration of Indian labour abroad, so
far as the wishes of India were concerned;
but it left óen the broader questione of
2
the treatment of Indian descendente abroad."
From 1.922 to 1938, the Governineit of India would
try to regulate emigration to Malaya off and on.
Bt in 1938, the Indian Governzaeut passed a bill.
which was the last of a series of legislative
enactments with the design to protect its nationals.
A ban was imposed on assisted unskilled labour
emigration from
India, and no unskilled labourer
could leave for Malaya even at hic own expense.
Thus
the above main ordinances and
enactments would be noticed if we take a birdts
eye view o:r all the legislative interference either
passed by the Government of India or the Malayan
Government. Prom the abundance of legislation,
j_t seers that there was no fixed definite policy
on the part of the Malayan governntent concerning
Indian inmiigration. This was in sharp contrast to
the concern of the Indian Government to obtain the
best treatment for its emigrants. Th borrow the
words of Dr. Lankasundaram:
"The (Indian) government, however stood
towards the emigrants in the position
of the protector of the weak and ignorant,
bound to supply their deficiencies with
its own fuller knowledge, so that as far
as possible, they might be placed upon
on equality with the more robust races
with whom they have to deal, and that
in the contract which they made with
those who made a bid for their labour
they might not be worsted or imposed upon."
It had been recognized by the Government of the
Federated Malay States that the Government of India
had every right to look after its nationals abroad,
and that it was the duty of a paternal GoTernment.7
The culmination of this policy was the Enigration
Act of 1922. Neverthele8s, it must not be understood
that the Indian Go7ernment actively encouraged
emigration of it5 nationals: it only permitted
C olonial emigration.
Magiitude of Indian Immigration: an Analysis of the
Factors Affectin Migraticn Rates.
In considering the magnitude of Indian
immigration to Malaya1 what first springs to mind
would be specific historical events and not abstract
67
TtcausesTl which determine specific trends and the
relative magnitud.e of Indian migration.28 it wi,ii
be attentpted here to account for the changes in
the rate of Indian migration to Malaya from 1900.
The migration rate
as very responsive to specific
changes in the prosperity of the areas in Malaya.
In fact,
II..... The movement of immigrant labourers
from South India and their arrival in and
departure froni Malaya in any year form a
good indu to the economic prosperity of
Malaya. "
In particular, the fluctuations in the prices of
rubber also determined the magnitude of Indian
immigration. The growth of the rubber industry
Tirtually controlled Indian immigration.30 In addition,
if the economic conditions in South India happened
to be faTourable, that is, if famines were absent
due to the coming of the monsoon rains, then fewer
Indians would migrate to Malaya. T.. Hill, Protector
of Labour, wrote in 1903:
"The imense1y improved conditions of the
A14''EiWVT a /ND/NS áE7WEN JAé/A e 41144AYA
#01I
lid
- - ---- -
- ._--- - -
---- -_-
-14ølAj'S IN NAJA
4Rtt"AI$
ekW4Es ôF/?1ANS
OM )4A4.AyA
--- ---- - - -- ------
,o
----____ -
j---- _____'Ì i
I
j--tt
MIIi.._i
-
-
=-- --.
--
ii
11
_.
II
-.
-
r
__
vii-I
D j.J Ì Ì IfkI I
I
I
I J i
I
I
I
L Li LIJ.....1
_
I
I
i
:rigure X.
Source: S. Nanjuudan, Indians iii Ì1a1ayan Ecøno1,
New Delhi, Government of India Press, 1951.
labouring ]asEe8 in their coun-try,
owinc to the succession cf good seasons
and. the fruit of the untiring o1icy of
the Madras Government of bettering the
conditions of all classes; the facts
that in the districts where our labourers
cuue from, there has been abundance of
cbea food and well-reniurierated work,
always within walking distance
being the chief factors adverse to
This illustrates that the magnitude of Indian
us.1T
immigration to Malaya depended on whether conditions
of life in South India were favourable'or not. In
reviewing the magnitude of Indian immigration to
Malaya, reference should always be made to Table
II. on pag69, 70 and 71.
In the year 1903, due to the prosperous
economic conditions in South India, the supply of
indentured labour was not equal to the demand. This
was due to the rising growth of ground-nuts trade
and the industrial development that was taking
place in South India. The number of indentured
labourers amounted to k82, compared to 2,3O in
1902.32 The immigrants that arrived at Penang,
Table II
South Thdian Deck Passengezs' Arrivals at Penan.
1901 -
19ko.
Year Total Arrivals IndentureclAssisted Non-Agisted
190].
l2227
2,78
n.a.
n%a.
1902
]LI,86o
2,1+30
n.a.
n.a.
1903
18,L447
k82
n.a.
n.a.
190k
25,682
2,670
n.a.
n.a.
:19o5
39,539
k,823
n.a.
n.a,
1906
52,0k].
3,67k
n.a.
n.a,
1907
60,5k2
5k99
n.a.
na.
1908
54I22
,k5G
na.
n.a.
1909
k9,817
k11].9
21,963
23,735
1910
83,723
2,523
60,3k7
20,853
1911
1o8,+7l
--'--
8k,389
2k,082
1912
106,928
79,838
27,090
1913
118,583
91,236
27,3k7
1914
51,217
36,905
lk,312
1915
73,323
k,88i
20,kk2
1916
95,566
72,091
23,k75
1
'
-'---
70
Year
Total A'rivals f Indentured ; Assisted ' Non-Assisted
1917
90,077
78,k07
11,670
1918
65,291
55,533
9,708
1919
l0].,k33
88,021
13,l2
1920
9,220
78,85
16,365
1921
k5,673
15,k13
30,260
1922
S8,6?L4.
38,336
20,338
1923
9,502
30,23k
19,268
192k
62,052
k3,1f7
18,905
1925
90,708
70,198
20,510
1926
1$,795
1k9,klk
25381
1927
156,132
123,826
32,306
1928
63,072
27,240
35,832
1929
llk,252
82,183
32,069
1930
69,11k
k2,771
26,3k3
1931
19,692
111
19,581
1932
17,73k
17 t
17,717
:1.933
20,2k2
20
20,222
193k
89,828
45,k69
1935
65,191
20,771 j
I
:
kk,359
i4,k20
71
Year'
Total Arrivals Ineriturea Assisted Non-Assisted
1936
k3,191
J.937
122,566
1938
4k,207
1939
23,961
19kO
15,320
3,75k 39,37
5k,8k9
67,717
39,627
287
n.a.
23,67k
n.a.
Source: Compiled from Annual Reports of the Labour
Department, 1901-19ko; iinua1 Reports of
the Agents of the Government oÍ India,
1925-19kO; Report on Indian Labour nigration
to Ceylon and Na1aya by N.E. Marjoribanks
& A.I. Marakkayar; International Labour Reviews;
and Colonial Labour Policy and Administration,
by J. Norman l'armer.
The figures in this table do not always agree
with statistics of other Malayan authorities,
but the writer has depended mainly on the
annual Reporte cf the Labour Department in
compiling these statistics.
n.a.
not available.
72
the port of disembarkation for the Straits Settlements
and the Federated Malay States during the year 1906
numbered 52,Okl.33 This figure might have been higher
if not for the cholera epidemic which broke out in
the Indian Immigration Depot at Penang. This necessitated
stoppage of immigration from India for some time. As
a result, nc statute immigrants and no free coolies
arrived at Penang during the short period from September
to the beginning of October. The loss incuzred by this
stoppage of immigration was considerable, for the year
1906 witnessed a boom in the rubber prices,
and the
resultant estate expansion called for a sudden increase
in the demand for labour. Even after the epidemic was
over, it took some time for the immigration operations
to be resu.med,
cm the beginning of the year up to
September, the supply was quite equal to the demand,
bnt starting from September to the end of the year,
due to quarantine restrictions, the numbers sell off,
so that towards the end o
the year, the supply did
not meet the demand. The Acting Superintendent of
73
Immigrants, L.H. Clayton, expressed the earnest
wish that the supply of immigrant labourers would
increase1
in view of the 'boom' in the rubber trade.35
owever in 1907, the total number of immigrants
rose to 60,1+2,36 but still the supply was far short
of the demand.
In the fo1lowin
year, the total number
of Indian immigrants that arrived from South India
fell to Sk,522,3'? as against 6O,42 in 1907. The
reason was that the recruiting of statute immigrants
was suspended during July, as the supply of statute
immigrants in the previous two months exceeded the
demand. The recruiting was resumed in August, but
the statute labourers were recruited only according
to the requirement, so as to guard against excess.
The total number of statute immigrants recruited
was 5,k568 but more could be obtained if there had
been the need. In fact, the need for indentured as
well as free labour diminished because of the
temporary fall in the price of rubber which checked
7k
aevelopnient and expansion of rubber estatss. In
1909, the total number of Indian immigrants wa
49,817.
The decrease might 1e explained by the
severe competition offered by Fiji and Natal in
recruiting statute immigrants.
uring the first half
of the year, the demand could be met, but towards
the latter half of the year, the demand increased
considerably, arid fear was expressed that there
would be a lack of labourers by
l9lO0
However,
in that year, the number rose to 83,723, the highest
recorded since 1901. The rubber booni started during
the year and continued up to 1912. As prices rose
high, planting was stimulated and the demand for
labour became urgent. It is important to point out
that this rubber boom would not have contributed
to the prosperity of Ialaya if the Indian Immigration
Committee and its attendant Indian Immigration Fund
had not been instituted to meet the expanding need.
The lack of immigrant labour would have been disastrous
to the development of the rubber plantations. The Indian
75
Irnmiation Fund proved successÍ1, for the figures
of immigrants rose to loS,k?lLfJ in 1911 aid 106,92842
in 1912. The indenture system had been abolished
by 1910, but there was an iucrease in the number
of free immigrants with cheap tickets in the year
1911. In 1912, there was a decrease of 1,543 immigrants,
and could be accounted for by the falling off in the
number of free immigrants with cheap tickets. On
the other hand, the number of passengers paying
their own passage had actually increased
as shown
by the following table:
Table
1f3
.
.
.
Indian Immigrants Arriving at Penan
during l9lO11 and 1912.
1919
Statute Immigrants
1911
1912
2,523
56,002
78,356
73,671
Other Immigrants
125,198
30,115
33,257
To tal
j85,723 1o8,k?1 106,928
Free Immigrants with
cheap tickets
In 1914, the total number of immigrants
76
who arrived at Penang was 51,217
118,588
as against
in 1913. The decrease of 67,366 could
be attributed to a combination of factors. Irrmiigration
from South India was eiitirely stopped from the
beginning of August to the end of the year. The
outbreak of war in Eu'ope in August necessitated
drastic cuts in the labour forte on the estates,
due to the various economies introduced because
of the continued low price of rubber. On ist. January
191k, there were l8.,773 labourers employed on estates
in the Federated Malaya States,6 but by the end of
the year the estate labour force was reduced to
161,379 showing a decrease of more than 23,000. The
various economies introduced, such as thinning out
of trees, reduction of tapping, and the increase
in the task work assigned to each individual tapper,
could dispense with the reduction of labourers
affected. Moreover, due to the war there was the
total suspension of the immigration of decir passengers
from Madras and Negapatain."
The figures for 191k
77
actually represented the first seven months of the
year, and after the last Eteamer carrying immigrants
arrived on 6th. August, immigration was temporarily
stopped. Rowever
29th
immigration was only resumed on
January 1915, and this &ccounted for the
increase in the number of immigrants that arrived
at Penan, amomtin
to
75,323.8 me weki- service
from India by steamers of the British Steam Navigation
Company, which had been stopped during 191sf, was
resunied in 1915, and continued up to 21st. November,
k9
when the service was changed to a fortnight].y one.
The total number of immigrants that arrived from
South India in 1917 amounted to 9O,O77° as against
9,56651 in 1916, showing a decrease of
1f89. The
decrease was mainly due to the number of ordinary
passengers, which fell from 23,k75 ta 11,670 in
1917 while the number of assisted immigrants increased
fi-orn 72,091 to 78,k07 as shown by Table
Table IV. Indian Immigrants during 1916 and 1917.
1916
1917
Assisted Thimigrants
72,091
78,kC)7
Other Immigrants
23,k75
11,670
Total
9,566
90,077
The decrease of the immigrants in 1917 could be
explained by the introduction of the Indian
passport regulations in April, followed by the
restriction placed on eiigration from India ot
ail unskilled labour except under licence. The
emigration of assisted passengers to Malaya was
allowed by a general licence153 u
to the maximum
of 82,000 adults over 18 years of age. Due to the
lack of sbiping aci1ities, the actual nwnber of
assisted immigrants who arrived fell short of this
figure by 12,539. Again, it is not surprising that
the total number of immigrants that arrived in
1917 was less than that of 1916, for during the
year, cholera epidemic broke out in the two emigration
camps in India, and therefore had to be closed. Thus
79
the number of Indian immjgnts that arrived at
enng during the year decreased, as the embarkation
of emigrants £roni iad.rae was stopped from 20th. July
to lkth
September, while at Neapatam, shìpping
was suspended from 3rd. November 1916 to lkth. September
1917.
In 1918, the total number of immigrants
front South India fell to
65,29j,5k
showing a decrease
of 2k,786 as against that of 1917. At the beginning
of the year a general licence allowing the emigration
of assiGted passengers up to the maximum of 73,000
adults over 18 years of age, was issued. However,
by the end oI March, the Government of India imposed
a further restriction by prohibiting the emigration
of male labourers between the ages of 18 and 25.
This was due to the urgent need in India of labour
battalions. The eífect was to raise the proportion
o;f women to men, as more men above the age o
25
were married and therefore brought their wives
along with them, as shown by Table V.
Table V5Proportior. of me
and women ainons
Assisted iants for 1916, 1917
grid 1918.
Year
Males
Females
1916
51,611
13,562
20.80
1917
58,107
13,8k
19.24
1918
ß8,o13
ii,681
23.50
Percentage of fema1e
The number of imnirants during 1918 had dwindled,
partly due to the restrictions imposed by the
cvernnent and
art1y due to the sbortae of
shipping facilities to cairy the immigrants across
the Bay of Bengal. The series of outbreaks of
cholera in the depot at Aadi in June 1918 and
again in September and December also prevented
and forestalled emigratioi, as the camps bad to
be evacuated during the outbreaks.
The year 1919 proved a good time for
immigrants, the number of which rose to l0l,k336
showing an increase of 36,1k2 as against that of
the previous year. When the war was over, the
Government of India removed the restrictioiis placed
on the emigration of male adults between the ages
of i8 and 25, thus regulating the flow of emigrants
to Malaya again. Still, the Governnient of India
founa it provident to keep a check on the issue of
licences to kangaiies, aJ.though kaiganie
wexe
allowed niore freedom than in 1918. The principle
on wbich the allotntent of licences to kanganies
was made reseibled that in the previous year2 old
established estates were permitted to retain recruiting
connections in India, while new estates were given
not more than tour licences each. This precaution
was taken until the expansion of shipping facilities
enabled the emigration of a
greatez' number of labourers
from India. The total number of immigrants during 1919
would have been greater but for the repeated outbreaks
of cholera in the depots in India as well as on board
the ships transperting the passengers to Malaya. In
the depot at Negapatain when cholera appeared, it was
e'racuated arid the district wa
closed to recrtiting
for seven iiionths of the year, thus reducing the
number of emigrants that might have been recruited.
IX) the depot at Aadi in Madras, five outbreaks of
cholera appeared, and recruiting was suspended for
86 nays during the year. Pliere was no lack of
labourers desirous of emigrating to Malaya, but
the restrictions imposed by the cholera outbreaks
curtailed the volwie of enigrants. In the words of
tue Acting Controller of Labour, Oliver Marks
I,
as recruiting was resumed
after suspension, labourers came freely
and at once."?
Iii 1920, the total number of immigrants
feLL to 95,22O,8 sbowin
a decrease of 6,213 as
against 101,f33 of the previous year. Many factors
coalesced together to bring about this decrease.
In India1 the wages were increased; while in Malaya,
a shortage of rice was experiencecI
thus raising
the cost of living. During the first half of the
year, a limit rvas imposed ou the number of licences
issued to kanganies. A
a result, the number of
83
si$tP in1igrants arriving at Malaya was
comparatively low, only 26217. But during the
second h1f of the year, the restrictions imposed
on employers in the issue of licences were removed,
and conseciuently the number of immigrants rose to
k3,187. This figire would probably have been higher
but for the fall in the price of rubber, which
impelled the employers to reduce their labour forces
on the estates. In the year 1921, the number oÍ
immigrants continued to drop off
being k5,67359 as
against 95,220 of the previous year. The decrease
of
actually exceeded the nwber of immigrants
who arrived
This diminution could be attributed to
the serious depression which descended on the rubber
industry1 causing low wages and a great abatement in
the existing labour force on the estates. This led
to the cessation of recruiting in India, as most
rubber companies were in financial straits and could
not affør
to take in more 1abourers. The nuiber of
assisted immigrants fell considerably to l,kl3 from
a height of 78,855 in 1920, vthile the opposite
was true in the number of immigrants who paid their
own passages: from 16,365 in 1920 it rose to 30,260
in 1921. The cause was due to the economic depression
which assailed the rubber industry. Most employers
ceased sending kanganies to the recruiting centres
in India. Thus assisted recruited labour ceased to
migrate to Malaya, aid persons who desir&1 to leave
India for Malaya had to pay their own passages.
However, in 1922, the total number of
immigrants picked up a bit: from k5,673 in the
previous year it rose to
8,67k,60 showing au
increase of 13,001. This Can be accounted for by
the fact that the trade dei-ession was arrested,
and wages of Indian labourers throughout the country
remained uniformly higher than the level of 1921,
when an adult male was paid 35 cents a day, although
j_n some localities, the wages fell below this level.
In 192e, except in the coastal districts of SeJangor,
where wages ranged
roi 27 to 35 cents for men and
22 cents to 30 cents fox' warnen, and in Negri
Seinbilan where field workers received 35 cents,
the prevailing wages paid to Indian labourers
were kO cents for men and 30 cents forwomen.61 As
a result of high wages, many peasants froni South
India were attractea to Malaya. During the year
1923, a decrease of 9,172 could be registered: the
total nunber of immigrants being f9,5O2.62 At the
beginning of the year kangany licences were not
freely issued owing to the uncertainty which prevailed
over the new rules which would soon be promulgated.
When the new rules were made known, more licences
were issued. Towards the end o
the year, the kanganies
were helped by the failure of the monsoon in certain
districts of South India. A large number of recruits
crowded at the depot, and they were then shipped to
Malaya.
ie Acting Controller or Labour, A.S4 Jeif
has written on the economic conditions in South India:
"The outlook in the Madras Presideney for
agricultural labour is very unfavourable.
1antiiie conditions were prevailing in
Anantaur and 23eJ.1ary In other parts
there was scarcity due to the failure
of monsoons. Ii Madras itself rain
failed and it is feared that there will
be a shortage of water this year.tT63
In l92k
immigrazits wao arrived from South India
amounted to
62,052,6k
the increase being 12,550
when coripared to that of the previous years This
increase was not surprisiig, for during the first
quarter of the year, the rain failed to appear in
the Madras Presidency, and. as a resnit, numerous
men and women offered to migrate to Malaya as
labourers, in jarticular from the districts of
Salem and North Lrcot. In fact, the number of
recruits was so many that during the second quar ter
of the year, recruiting was suspended because the
depot nearby could not take in all the numbers
that were coming in. But thiring the latter half
of the year, conditions in the southern portion of
the Madras Presidency were not favourable for
emigration, as crops were good and rainfall was
regular until the partial fai1tue of the Eorth-st
Monsoon in Gctobex. ioreover, the prevalence of
cholera necessitated the c.osing oÍ the depot in
June and July, and this kept intending emigrantE
away. The serious flooding Of the Cauvery River
j_n July almost entirely isolated Negapatam for a
»eriod of about three weeks, and. this prevented
the emigration of labourer6 and others from the
depot there.
The number of innigrants who arrived in
19R6 represented the creendo of Indian inun.igration
to Naiaya, for it reached the maximum of 17k,795.6
This constituted the highest number of Indian
immigrants ever recorded in a single year, in the
period froni 1900 to 19kO. The figure that can be
compared with this maximum belonged to the year
1927, which amounted to 16,132,
to be followed
by the figure for 193? which was 122,566. It is
interesting to compare these maxima with the lowest
figures reached: 12,227 for l9Ol' 14,860 for 190268
and 17,73k
or 1932.69 It is crystal-clear wiiy tae
1
[II.]
numbers of immigrants for the years 1901 and 1902
were so low: the rubber in.dustry had not yet been
entrenched in Malayan eiononiy, and hence the demand
for labour was not so great. The low figLue !or 1932
can be explained by the economic depression which
plagued Malaya during the 1930's
During the year
1926, the increase was mainly in the numbers cf
assisted immirarzts, who exjanded from 70,198 in
the previous year to 1k9,klk. The rate of increase
was 80 great that E.W.F. Gi]man, the Controller of
Labour wrote in 1926:
!'3n the second and third quarters the
number of emigrants strained the
acoommodation of the Bnjgration epots.Tt
The number of immigrants to Malaya during the year
was double that of the previous year owing partly
to a bad seaeon in India aild partly to the active
demand for labour in Malaya. In addition it can
also be explained by the fact that the nwnber of
emigrants to Ceylon in 1926 bad fallen from 76,f1O
in 1925to
6,722.71 Besides Malaya, Ceylon was the
only other country in which emigration for unskilled
work was still lawful by this time. But the faot
that the number of eiraRts fell off proved that
Cey1oi too had reached 'saturation point' in
absorbing Indian labour. Consequently more Indian
laboui-er6 tended to migrate to Malaya. Another
factoi- which had an important bearing on the
magnitude of Indian migration to Malaya during
1926 was the exemption for Malaya from rule 23
of the Indian
igration Act 1922 which required
that aiong emigrants the sex ratio should be J3
males for one female.72
The trend remained about the same in 1927,
and the immigrants numbered 156,l32,
but in the
following year there was a. sharp fall of 93,060,
plunging to the level of
63,072,7k
The great drop
in the number of immigrants could be attributed to
the large influx of Indian labourers in 1926 aiid
1927, which had met all the demands for labour.
The employers also found tt practical to stop ail
forms of recruitment, due to the uncertainty which
existed ii the rubber market, created by the
decision that all forms of restrictions on the
exjDort of rubber from Malaya would be renoved
starting from 1st.Norember 1928. On the other
hand, the trend of irnrnie'rants rose again in 1929,
which registered an increase of 5ll8O amounting
to a total of llk,252.75 The principal reason was
perhaps due to the increase of wages of South Indians
throughout the country1 following the increase of
wages of South Indian laboux'ers in the coastal
districts of Selangor. The rates, 50 cents a day
forj males,
cents a day for females and 20 cents
a day for minors were carried into effect starting
from ist. February 1929. The increase may also be
explained by the withdrawal of the restriction on
the output of rubber beginning from ist. november
1928, and the opening of about twenty-four ne
estatess6 mis of course created a demand faz'
labouz'.
'erhaps the exemption of the Colony frani
the operation of the sex ratio rule till the end
of June 1930 was aleo responsible for the great
influx of imrnigrant. As a result, the Colonial
emigration authorities relaxed the rules concerning
the prescribed ratio. Hence a great number of single
males
&s
admitted .nto the depots and assisted
to emigrate.
The failure of the
uglo-Dutch restriction
talks in the second half of 1929 brought about a
steep fall in wages and the subsequent economic
depression which fc1lowed
In 1930, from a height
of llk,252, the number of immigrants plunged to
69,11k177 the decrease being F5,l38. Because of the
world depression, the priöes of rubber and tin
depreciated,'8 and this resulted not only in
wide-spread unemployment but also in reduced
iigDation. The number of immigrants deereased
due to lowered wages, uncertainty of emp1oyent
and cuts in Government assistance to Indian migrants.
At the end of July 1930, assisted im±gration from
India was suspended,'9 and in August of the saine
92
year there was also the susensioii of the recruiting
of Indian 1a'bour.° When the price cf rubber coxtinued
to fall, eni1oyers were forced to retrench the labour
forces on estates by inreasir
the tasks of each
individual labourer. In order to prevent unemployrient
from spreading, restrictions were imposed on the
entry of immigrants, 2nd repatriation of those who
could not finca work was also effected.
The diminishing export values of rubber
froi 1929 to 1933 can illustrate the magnitude of
Indian immigration during these years
as shown by
Table VI.
TableVI.82
cport Values of Rubber from T.MS. 1929-33.
(Million Straits dollars)
Year
Rubber values
! 1929
1930
202
108
I
1931
1932
1933
5L
37
58
Accompanying this donward trend of rubber export
values, was the fall in the annual price of rubber
per pound during these years, so shown by Table VII
93
Table VII8
Annua1price of rubber per
from
oun
1929 to 193k.
Year
1929
1930
193k
1933
193]. 1932
Price of Rubber.3k.k8 cts. 19.31 cts, 9.96 7.01 10.23 2O7O
per round
I
The fall in the price oÍ' rubber per pound was also
accompanied by a decline in the daily wage rates of
South Indian labour auring these years.
Table V1118k DaiiyWage Rates of South Indian Labour
from 1929 to 19e. (The Denominator
represents the wages of female labour.)
Year
1929
Daily Wage Retes
1930
1931
1932
1933
l93k
50/ko kO/32 30/2726/22 32/2635/28
T) straits Cents
Diminishing export values of rubber, annual price of
rubber and wages during these depression years were
the causes of the downward trend in the migration
rates from 1929 to 1933 as shown by the ro1lowin
table.
Table
Year
IL8
Indian Imniigrants who arrived from 1929 to 193k.
1929 f 1930
1932
1933
193k
Number of Immigrants 11k ,2569 , 112I19t69217,?3It20 ,24289,828
With the labour znarket saturated,
nd with the
retrenchment policy of the employers1 it is
su:t'prisin
that the nuniber of arriving iunigrants
each year was so high. But it serves weil to remenibea-
that alter 1930 most of the immigrants that arrived
paid their own passages. In 1931, the rnrnibez' of
assisted immigrants that arrived
ae 111, while
19,581 raid their own passages. In 1932 only 17
were assite
immigrants, while 17717 paid their
ovni passages. Of the 17 assisted immigrants, 12
ari-iveci at Port Swettenha
in 1932, as compared
with 67 in 1931. They consisted of seven ath1ts,
three minors and two infants.86 In 1933, twenty
were assisted immigrants while 20,222 paid their
own passages. Seventeen assisted immigrants arrived
at Port Swettenham during the year; they were
mot1y women acconipaiied by their children1 coming
over to join their huebandB in Ma1aya.8
These low
figures of arriving immigrants were reflected in
Indian estate employment during the depression yeare
from 1929 to 1933. In
ct the number of ìiidian
estate labourers was almost halved, as shown by
the followñng table.
Table
X88
Nunzber of Indian Labourers
flQoyed
on Estates in the Straits Settlements
& F.M.S., 1929-33.(Thoueancls)
Year
1929
Indian Estate Ibourers
205
1930 .
i
l5
1931
1932
1933
121
10k
111
In 1933, the re-opening of small holdings
and estates formerly closed increased the demand
fox labour. By June or Jnly, estates not paying
30 cents bund it hard to recruit workers. In the
latter baU of the year, with the prospect of
restrictions on the output of rubber, many employers
were trying to replenish their greatly reduced
labour force. By the end of 1933, there was the
gradual return of confidence
and an increase in
the price
rubber causea more employment to become
avai1ab1e.8
In October 1933, the Controller of
Labour and the Chairman of the Planters' Association
of Malaya went to Iu.ia to discuss with the Government
the resumption of assisted migration. In early 1934,
the Indian authorities agreed to the resumption of
assisted non-recruited emigrante, to the maximum
number of 20,000. Thus assisted. emigration of
ilon-recruited unskilled labour from South India to
Nelaya was allowed once again, but under certain
cond.tone. 90 The privilege of repatriaton1 which
.
.
.
.
.
.
was allowed during the first year of the immigrantt s
arrival, was extended to two years. The emigration
commissioner in Madras should supply monthly reports
on emlcyment conditions in Malaya. These conditions
were imposed in order to prevent excessive emigration
freni India and a possible fall in Malaya's wage rates.9'
A tTquotatl system was instituted. !Xanagers of estates
who wanted additional labour were asked to apply to
the local Labour Department, stating their existing
labour force, rates of wages paid and fez- each estate
a "quotat' was fixed which was not to exceed fIfteen
per cent of the strength of the existing labour
force
011
tue estate. It was only in exCeptiona1
cases that this
quota could be
eiïacied.Non-recruited
imm:i3rantE were only assisted to come to M1aya
provided they possessed written evidence of having
been enq1oyed before on a T1quot&'
persons those names
appeared
estate1
or were
on the lists submitted
to the Labour Department by the employers, or were
relatives of labourers on the estates. The quota
was imposed by the Government cf India without
consulting the Government of Malaya: the number
to be admitted was to be left to the decision of
Malaya.92 In order to carry into effect the reewuption
of assistea eiuigration to the maximum number of 2OOOO
a system of bearer-letters which were to be obtained
by the immigrants, was devised. But the system did
not operate satisfactorily, chiefly owing to the
great pressure to emigrate from India. Bence
the
number of assisted immigrants that arrived at Nalaya
reached the height of 'f5,k69, in spite of the restrictions
imposed to limit them to 20,000. This was due to the
baci econoiiic conditjors which prevailed in the
recruilirig districts of Madras, where the mausoon
had just failed, and tens of thousands emitrants
stormed the emigration camps. So easer were they
to emigrate that bearer-1ettezs in their hands
becanie forged documents. The year 193k therefore
witnessed
great increase in the number of arrivino
imigrnts: 89828 as against 2O,2i-2 in 1933, showing
an increase of 69,586. It is remarkable that after
the terrille experience o
such a great number o
the ìepressiori years
Indian immigrants found
themselves in Malaya! In tact, there was a shortage
of labour after the depression years. This was due
to the great improvement in the gereral economic
conditions which prevai1e
throughout Na1aya
The
price of rubber rose to 25 cents a pound in September,
but it suffered a relapse, and during the rest of
the year, it remained at 21 cents per pound.
Thiring the year 1935, there was a big drop
in the irniber of immigrants who arrived in Malaya.
99
It amounted to 65,191,
a. dro! al 2k,637 as against
that of 193sf. Tho drop could be attributed to the
reduced level of' production which was introduced
under the Rubber Restrictioi Sc1eme, under which new
1nnting was prohibited. The demand ±'or labour
naturally subsided. TIence the Labour Derartment
restricted the number of assisted passa'es, and
confined them to former eitate labourers or those
who were dependents of labourers in Malaya. The
maximum quota allowed by the Government of India
in voluntary assisted emigration was 35,000 adults,
and this included the excess arrival of 13,000
adults in round figures during 193k over the quota
of 20,000 fixed for that year.9k The number of
assisted immigrants decreased from k5,k69 in 193k
to 20,771. Corwersely the number of immigrants who
came on their own exceeded that of the previous
year by 61, that is, kk,k20 as against kk,359 of
the previous
ear
This substantial influx of
unassisted passengers only tended to swell the
ui.I
ranks of the unemployed duzin
the year.95
During 1936, the arriving immigrants
numbered f3,19l,6 siiowing a decrease of 22,000
when coinpred to that of 1935. The fall was 3ue
to the diminishing demand tor labourers on estates.
During the year, production and export of rubber
was restricted to 60 per cent of the basic quotas
tu] the end of June, and to 65 per cent thereafter
in the following months.97 Hence the demand for
additional labour on estates was very limited.
Assisted passages were giTen to those labourers
who were returning to Malaya
and to the relatives
or friends of labourers who were already in Malaya,
to whom employment was guaranteed by estate managers.
There were only 3,7511. assisted immigrants: many
applicants for assisted passages were refused. On
the other hand, the number of immigrants who païd
their own passages amounted to 39,k37. This was
indeed higb
the cause lay in the failure of the
south-west monsoon in several parts of the rainfed
areas of the Naciz'as Presidency. Moreover, the fact
that work was not available throughout the year in
the agricultural districts of the Madras Presidency,
and that the wages earned were insufficient helped
to spur the Indians overseas. In spite of the
diminishing demand for labour on the estates, antple
work was available in Singapore: at the extensive
works carried on at the Naval Base, Civil and Military
Air Bases, and at the Harbour. Consecuently many
unassisted immigrants flocked to
iugapore.8
In the winter of 1936-37 there was sign
of high prosperity in the rubber industry. This
accounted for the high number of immigrants that
arrived in 1937: 122,566. During the year there was
greater production in the rubber industry, and. there
was a considerable demand for labour in that country.
At the same time low rate of wages prevailed in the
agricultural districts of the Madras Presidency.
On the other hand, since there was a demand for
labour, employers were willing to pay higher wages
102
in Malaya.99 Thiz attracted many iunigrants into
Ma]ay
But by the end of 1937, another slunip had
set in, and the price of rubber fell. Ey 1938, there
were 6±S of deterioration in trade, ptrtly owing
to the disturbed international situation and to
the resultant reduction in rubber export.100 In
view of these bad economic conditions
the Central
Indian Association of Malaya sent the following cable
to the Governnient of India, and this was thought to
influence the Government of India to impose a ban
on assisted emigration to Malaya:
"Reduction of wages of Indian labour is
imminent. If wages are now reduced this
action will finally render infructuous
the main labour of the Sastri delegation.
The present labour situation is definitely
detrimental to the economic interests of
Indian labour. It is suggested that
assisted emigration be stopped pending
settlement of issues between the two
countries. We respectfully urge Governnient
of India to take up a determined and firm
stand and safeguard Indian rights."'01
In a statement issued to the Press by the President
of the Central Indian Association of Nalaya, Dr. A.M.
Soosay pointed out that the responsibility for sending
103
the cable was that o1 the Association alone, because
the Association was a non-official all-?4alayan
OZ'ganizatjon representing Indian public opinion.102
This cable which was sent on 29th. March 1938, aroused
a great deal of controversy and unfavourable comment
on the C.I.A,M. However
the CSI.A.M. felt that the
existing labour position in the country was detrimental
to the economic interests of Indian labour, and with
the reduction of wages iimninent
the time had corne
to stop bringing in any more labourers to add to the
already surplus labour in Malaya, and thus preventing
further destitution among wage-earners. In May 1938
wages for Indian estate workers experienced a cut
o:t l0%
so that aale labourers received only ii-5 cents
per day.
The Government o
India then decided to
pxchibit assisted emigration to Malaya, and the ban
was made effective from 15th. June 1938. The Prohibitory
Order was as following
"Whereas it appears that the number of
unskilled Indian labourers now in the
1Of
Malay States is in excess of the present
requirements of industry, and continuance
of eaigration to those States is therefore
undesirb1e1 the Central Government in
exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-.section ci) of section 13 of the
Indian
igration Act, 1922CV11 of 1922)
is p1e.sed to prohibit with effect from
15th. June 1938, all persons from enigrating
from the Provincial Government of Madras
to the Straits ett1ements, the Federated
Malay States of Perak Selangor, Negri
Sembilan and Paban., and to the Unfedera.ted
Malay States of Kedah, Perils, Johore,
Kelantan1 Trerigganu and Brunei for the
purpose of uneki11d øk nlO3
The Order therefore prohibited assistance to unskilled
worIers who night migrate to work for hi?e Or to be
engaged in ariculture. However, wives and minor
chu13ren were allowed to be assisted to rejoin husbands
and fathers provided that they did not work for hire.
What was niost severe was that even unskilled workexs
w}o were ready to pay for their passages, could not
migrate to Malaya for hire or for work. The Order
therefore affected both assisted and unassisted
emigrants. The Go'vernnient of India passed this
drastic law without consulting the opinion of the
lo 5
Nalayan Government. But still, action could not
be taken against unskilled workers who were migrating
to Nlaya at their own expense, and wb.o could prove
that they were not going to work on their arrival
in Na1cya.
Vhy 3id the Government of India impose
the ban on assisted emigration of unskilled labour
to Malaya in June 1938? P'irst of all1 the cable
sent by the C,I..M. riiight have been instrumental
in influencing the Governient of India to take such
action. The warning of the C41.A.M. that there would
be a reduction of wages proved correct, for the cable
had been sent on 29th. March, and in May 1938, there
was a cut of 10% in the wages of Indian estate
labourers. A second cut was threatened as of August
ist., l938.l
the conditions in the employment
market in Malaya must have induced the Government
of India to prohibit assisted emigration. Towards
the end of the year 1937, when the quota release
cf rubber export was 90 per cent, there was enough
labour force in the country to meet the requirements
of the rubber industry. In 1938, during the first
quarter, the quota iras reduced to 70 per cent1
then to 60 per cent in the second quarter and to
¿f
per cent in the third quarter. Under such
circumstances, the problem of unemployment loomed
large, affecting at least 30 per cent of the workers
in the rubber industry, besides reduciig
of the remaining labourers. In
the wages
articixlar, the
Government of India wanted to ensure that the supply
and demand of Indian lalour should be fairly balanced,
and that there would be rio floating surplus of labour
to depress wages still further)0
In addition, the
Governnient of India disliked the policy of repatriation
b
which shiploads of Indians were taken back like
"sucked-out orangesT' whenever economic conditions
in Malaya were at a low ebb. This was always a source
of embarrassment to the 4adras administration. This
the Government had experienced during the economic
depression of the 1930's. Besides, in. Malaya the
107
Indians were treated only as second-class citizens:
they were looked upon önly as manual labourers.
In the woHs oI Dr. Virginia Thompson:
The Malayan Labour Department had indeed
succeeded in lauding the Indian worker
in Malaya a free
without debts
which bound him either to the kangany
or to bis employer, and it bsd prevented
the Worst abuses in the employer-employee
relationship. But Malayats labour leçis1ation
was still too meagre and its enforcenient
generally too negative. Not even the niost
ardent Indian nationalist could say that
his compatriots were brutally treated in
Malaya, but they could justly contend
that the Indian labourers there were not
R self-reliant, coherent and organized
mane
bodr.thlO&
As a result of aU these factors, the Government of
India felt that it was high time to retaliate by
refusing to let any of its nationals go to Malaya.
By imposing a ban on assisted emigration, it hoped
to bring about an improvement in the status of
Indian labourers in Malaya. Consequently, there
was a sharp drop in the number of immigrants who
arrived during the year 1938:
fk,2O7.107 me decrease
registered was 78,359 as against 122,566 iia 1937.
The assisted imniigrants in 1938 numbered
58O
while 39,627 paid their own passage6. Thi3 was in
sharp contrast to the figures of the previous year:
5k,8+9 were assisted immigrants while 67,717 paia
their own passages. The ban imposed by the Government
of India on assisted emigration of unskilled labour
was reflected in the magnitude of Indian itnmigration
for the year.
Early in 1939, Malaya sent a delegation
in order to negotiate with the Indian authorities
at Delhi the conditions of a resumption of assisted
emigration.108 But the negotiations did not produce
any tangible result, because many of the difficulties
could not be breached. The Malayan delegates maintained
an ïntransigent attitude because the prevailing rubber
quota was Lf
per cent, and there was ample labour
supply to fill the quota. They thought that even if
the Third Restriction Agreement came into being after
a number of yearsj there would be abundant labour
because by then the children of estate coolies would
have grown up to fill the 1bour demand. In tile
last reaort, thee
oii1d a1vays be the possi'oi1it
of employing Javanese and Chinese labour. Even at
the outbreak of the European War, the ban was not
lifted, and the flow of emigrants was restricted
to unassisted passengers, among whom there were
very few labourers after 1938. In 1939, only 287
were assisted to immigrate to Malaya, while 23,67k
paid their own passages. The total number of immigrants
amounted to 23,961, showing a decrease of 2O,2+6
as againet that of the pre'vious year. The total
number of immigrants who arrived in Malaya during
19ko was l5,32Ol09 including l,31i- workers. The
ban1
which had been imposed in 1938, continued in
force during the war. Moreover, since 192
the
immigration laws of Malaya were made stricter in
order to keep out aliens.0 This was due to tile
fact that after the war !alaya was in a position
to meet her labour requirements with a rapidly
increasing settled population, and when sore !4alays
I".
wore entering the labour maxket
Yet many were
those who wanted to enter into Halaya, as the standard
of living in the country wa
corupartive1y higher
than other Asian countries. The Malayari Government
tberefore found it high time that stringent laws
concerning iunigration should be passed in order
to
t'
prevent a deterioration in the
present standard of living and to
safeg-uard, for those who have made
their homes in Malaya and are going
to
the Malayan Nation, the medical,
educational, social and other benefits
which are at present available for them."
Accordingly the Immigration Ordinance was passod on
2fth. April 1952 by the Governments of Singapore
and the Federation of Malaya and it came into force
on ist. August 193. As a result, flselectjTet
immigration came into force and right of entry was
limited to British subjects born or naturalised in
Malaya, Federal Citizens, subjects of the lhiler of
a Malay State, British subjects ordinarily resident
in Malaya, aliens who were holders of Resident's
iI
aertificates
and the wives and children under 18
years of all these person.112
Thus if we take a bird's eye view of the
magnitude of Indian immigratioa to Malaya, we can
discern six prominent phases:
a) 183k-1906
113
the period when there
ws no restriction on indentured emigration front
India. There was a steady rise in the volume of
immigration into Malaya during this phase.
b) 1907-1922
this phase saw the ao1ition
of the indenture system, and the formation of the Indian
Immigzation Committee, two important milestones that
must beconsidered in an analysis of Indian immigration
to Malaya. There was a rise in the kangany method of
recruitment.
c) 1923-1929
duz'ing this phase Indian
immigration was influenced by the Indian "Act of 1922".
Due to the general economic prosperity in Malaya, the
number of imiriigrants that arrived rose hih. Thus thí
period was known as the peak of Thdian imigi'ation.
112
a) 1930-1933
- the Great Depression
was mainly resonsib1e for the downward trend of
arriving iimigrants in Malaya, for the employers
were trying to cut down their labour fortes due
to the declining prices of rubber per pounds
e) 193f-1937 -'---- there was the revival
of Indian immigration into M1a'ïa, but the znagnite
ws not so high as during the 1920's.
f) 1938-l9k
- this phase witnessed
the effects on inmigration into Malaya by the ban
imposed by the Government of India on assisted
uuskilled emigration ou
June 15th. J.93, and the
disastrous influence of World War II.
Therefore it is clear that the magnitude
of Indian imiiigration into Malaya was influenced
mainly by the economic atmosphere both in Malaya
and in India as well. But the story of Indian
immigration would really be an account of the Ixidiaii
Inunigration Committee, for it was the organization
that had as its duty the supervision of the import
113
or immirgnt labour.
esides, Indian innziigrtion
to Malaya was m'in1y a Ioo1iet movement. So we
sh3J turn on to the Indian Iniigratiou Committee
and its attendant, the Indian Immigration Fund.
11sf
Foo tno ter
ir.
atthees,, TL1igration of Indian Labour into
Nalaya 1867-1910", Unub1ished B.A.(Hons.) Thesis,
ii3tory Department, Oniversity of Singapore, 195k.
p.3.
2
Usia Mabajani, The Role oÍ Indian Minorities in
:urn1a and MaJ.aya, Institute of PacifIc ie1ations,
New York, 1960. p.95.
3 Sir 1ichard
instedt, Malaya and Its History,
Hutchinson's University Library Press, London,
1948. p.2k.
¿f
Kondapi, Indians Overseas, 1838-19k9, Indian
Council of World Affairs, London, 3.951, p.]..
5 K. Jegadeva, "Indian Immigration into Malaya
1910-].9k1" Unpublished B.A.(Hons.) Thesis, Histo7
Departflent, University of singapore, 1959, p.7.
6
Narasimhaxi, "The Iiniigraut Communities of
Soutb-Est Asia," India Quarterly, January-March,
7 M.J. KennawR3r, Some Investigations of s.S. & F.LS.
115
Recruiting in the 1adras Presidency, Kuala Lumpur, 1912.
s
9
10
Jegadeva, op. cit. p.6.
N. Jagatheesan, op. cit. p.22.
.
*
.
Leg.s1atve Council Proceed.ng19O, Straits
Settlements/Correspondence reJ-tin
to Indian Intmiration,
Papers laid on the table on 29.5.1900.
11
K. Jeçadeva, op. cit. p.7.
12
Sandhu, Indians in Modern Ma1aya
A manuscript
of a forthcoming publication, to be pub1ised by
Donald Moore, in 1963, under Eackground for Malaya
Series.
13
w.v. Sovani, Economie
e1ationz of India with
South-east Asia and the Far east, Indian Council
of World Affairs, New Delhi, 19k9.
1k
15
.
.bxd., p.48.
ibid., ».68.
16 Legis1ative Council Proceeding, Strait8 Settlements,
1898, p.B28.
17 RN. Jaccson, Imniigant Labour and the Developiaent
of Malaya, Kuala Lunpur, 1960, p.58.
1i6
iS
ibid., :p.6]..
].9
iiider this system a group of labourers would
sieri a 'joint and several' contract which would
render each of this group liable for the default
of any of the others. The Straits Settlements
Labour Commission Report of 1890 called it a system
or "very inhwnan applicationu for it had the effect
of ïxiakin
one man pay for the crine of ninety-nine
absconders.
20
A.B.
Voules1
Compiler, The Laws of Selag
l877-l99 p2.
21
slatjve Council Proceedings, Straits Settlements,
1892, p.C2k9.
22
JN Farmer, Colonia]. Labcu
Policy and Administration:
A History of Labour in the Rubber Plantation IndustrZ
in Malaya 1310-19k1 New York, 1960,
23
.117.
tate schools were first established in the
nineteenth Century on sugar estates in Province
Wellesley for indentured labourers. Rowevei' schools
on rubber estates were established after 1912.
117
2k
25
Jackson, op. cit. p.ES.
Davis, The Pou1ation of India and Pakistan,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1951,
26
Lankasundarai,
.1O6.
Internationa1 Aspects oI Indian
igration", Asiatic Review, January 1931, j.115.
27
Proceeing of the Federal Courci1 for the year
1923e ]'ederated Na1a
2B
States, p. 3100.
G.W. Skinner, Chinese Soc±cty in Thailand: An
AnalyticaJ. Hist, Cornell University Press, New
York, 1957, p.62.
29
&nnua1 Report of the Agent of the Government oÍ'
India in MaJ.aya for the Year
New Delhi,
Manager of Publications, 1938e p.2.
30
31
Jegadeva, op. cit. p.UJ.
H. Hill, Repox't on Indian Imniigration and
Eiigratioi for the Year 1903, Oífice of the Protectax'
of Labour, F.M.S., 190k.
32 1.2. Price, Annual Report of the South Indian
Labour Fund Board, 199, Governnient Press, Federation
o Malaya, 1960
p.3k.
118
L.H. C1aytoi, Report on Indian Inimigration and
Enigrtion for the year 1906, Penang, 1907, p.1.
3i.
Rjr. Jackson, Immigrant Labour and the Dee1opment
of Malaya 1786-19O,
35
ua1a Lunipur, 1960, pJ,o8.
Report on Indian Imniigration and 3igration for
the year 1906, op. cit. p.3.
36
L.H. Clayton, Report on Indian Immigration and
iigration for the year 19O7
37 L.R. Clayton,
p.1.
eport on Indian Immigration and
Jigration for the year 19O8
38
Penang, 19O8
Penan, 1909, p.1.
ibid. p.1.
39 A.s.
iaynes1
Report on Indian Imniigration and
year 1909, Penang, 1910, p.1.
ko
k].
ibid. p.2.
L.H. Clayton, Annual Rport on Indian Immigration
for the year 1911, Straits Settlements, 1912, p.1.
k2
Aldwortb, Annual Report on the Labour
Department for the year 1912, Government Printing
Office, Singapore, 1913, p.]..
3
ibid. p.]..
119
¿iii.
fose,
port on the !orkingof the Labour
Department for the yenr
91k, Inbour Office, Kuala
Lumpur, 1915, p.1
¿
E.S. Hose, Rert ori the Vorkinof the Labour
Dearthent for the year 1913, Labour Office,
ua1a
Lumur, 191k, p.1.
k6
k?
Report for 191k, op. cit.
Annual Departmeutal Reort
of the Stxaits Settlements
for the year 19, Singapore 1915.
k8
Aldworth1
2eport Oi the Workin
Labour Department for the 7ear 191
oÍ the
Kuala Lumpur,
1916, p.1.
¿f9
p.1.
50
LLF. Gilman,
ort on the Working of the Labour
Department Thr the year 1917, Kuala Lumpur, 1918, p.1.
51
Aidwortli, 1epprt on the Working of the Labour
Deprtment for the year 191G, Kuala Lumpur, 1917, p.1.
52 ieport mr the year 1917, op. cit. pl.
53 Report for the year 1917, op. cit. p.1.
k JR.O. Aidwortli, Report ozi the Wor)dg of the Labour
Ifr
Department for the year 1918, Kuala Lumpur, 1919,
1.
55 ibid.
56
]arks, Repçrt on the
Torking of the Labour
Department for the year 1919, Kuala Lumpur, 1920 p.1.
57
ibid. p.5.
58
Peel, Report on the Vorking of the Labour
Department for the year 1920, Kuala Lumpur, 1921, p.1.
59 7. Peel, Rport on the Working of the Labour
Kuala Lumpur, 1922, p.1.
Department for the year 192
6o
E.W.F. Gilian, Peport ou
the Working of the Labour
Department for the year 1922, Kuala Lumpur, 1923e p.1.
6i
62
.
p.5.
JeU,
eport on the Working of the Labour
Department Thr the jyear 1923, Kuala Lumpur, 192k, p.1.
63
6k
ibid. p.4.
Gilnian, Report ori the Working of the Labour
Departmezt for the year 19?t Kuala Lupur, 1925
6
Gilman, Annual Report on the Labour
Department for the year 1926,
ua1a Lwnpur, 1927, p.1.
66 E.W.F. Gilman, &nnua1 Report of the Labour
121
Dartment, Ma1ya for the year 1927, Kuala Lumpur,
1928, p.1.
67
Hill, Report on Indian Iinn4gration and
Jnigtion for the year 19Of, Office o1 the Protector
of Labour, P.M.S. 1905, p.2.
68
69
.
ibid. p.2.
C.D. Ahearne, Annual Report of the
orking of the
Labour Department for the 'ear 1932, Kuala Lumpur,
1933, p.1.
70 Mnual Report for the year 1926, op. cit. pk.
71
S.H. Slater, Annual
Indian
eport on the Working of the
nigration Act 1922 for the year 1926,
Government of Madras.
72
p.10.
73 :E.w.F. Gilman, Annual Report cf the Labour
jartment for the rear 1927, Kuala Lwpur, p.1.
7k
Gilmaii, Annual Report on the labour
Department for the year 1928, Kuala Lumpur, p.1.
75 s.c. Bathurst, Annual Report on the labour
Dçprtnient for the year 199, Kuala Lumpur, 1930, p.1.
76
.
Gray1 Annual Report on the Working of the Indian
322
iigratiorz Act1 192 for the year 1929, Government
Press, Calcutta, 193O
7?
p.3.
?.J.K. Stark, Annual Report of the Labour
Department for the year 1930, Kuala Lumpur3 1931, p.1.
7
Purushottama Padmanabha Pillai, Labour in Southeast
Asia: A Symposium, New De1h.1 Indian Council of
Nor1d Affairs, 19k7, p.1k5.
'79
P.T. Bauer, The Rubber Industry, A Study in
Competition and Monopoly, Cambridge: Harvard tíniirezsïty
Press, 19k8, p.225.
80
"iabour in British
Labour
83.
a1ay
in 1931", Thternational
eview, V. 27(1933) p.39&.
ibid. p.398.
82
sauer, op. cit. p.15.
83
Neelakandha, Indian Problems in Malaya, A
urvar j
Brief
Ie1ation to
nigration, The Indian
Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1938, Appendix D.
8
85
.
.
ibid. Table VI
.
s also copi1ed from Appeudx D.
.
Table VII is compiled from the Annual
the Labour Department from 1929 to 193k.
eports on
123
86
Adams, Annual Peppt on the Social and
Econoniic Progess of the People of Se1ngor for
the year 1, F.M.S. Government Prese, 1933,
p.2?, para199.
87
.s. Adams, Annua]. Report on the Social and
Fconoiîiic Progress of the Peo1e of Selangor for the
year 1933f p.31, para. 207.
88
89
P.T. Bauer, op. cit. p.22k.
Annual Report of the Agent of the Goernnient of
India in Malaya for the ir 1933, New Delhi1
Manager of Publications1 193k1 p.3.
90
Annual Report of the Agent of the Government of
of India for the year 193k, New Delhi, Manager of
Publications, 1935, p.2,.
91
.
Thoipson, Labour Problems in Southeast Asia,
New Haven, 19k7, p.67.
92
93 J.M. Barran,
nnua1 Rert of the Iabou' Department
for the year 19, Kuala Lunpur, 1936, p.1.
9k
&nnua1 Re,ort of the Agent of the Governe.t o
l2Lf
aia for the year 1935, De1hj
Government of
Thda Press, 1936, p3.
Bauer, op. cit. 236.
96
VJ1son, Annual Reprt of the labour Deprtmeut
for the year
9?
Kuala Lumur., 1937, p.12.
Report of the Agent of Lhe Government of In3ia
:' theyeaz 1936, Delhi, Government of India Press,
1937g p.4.. See also Ji. Priestly's ¿txinual Report
on the Working of the Indtui Thiigratiox Act, 1922
for the year936, Delhi, 1937e p.2'
98
ibid.1 p.Lf.
99 T.G. Rutherford
Annual Report on the Working
the Indian Bigration At 1922 for the year
1937m
Mnaer of Publications, Demi 1938.
100
.
"Indian Labour
.
International Labour Review
101
.
. *
.
,n Ceylon, Ftp. and British Malaya"
2(l9fO) p.68.
Quoted in United Planting Jssociation of Malaya
Circular No. if, 1938, p.2.
102
103
Malav Mails June 16th. 1938, p.5.
Wilson, Annual Rept of the Iabour Department
L25
for the year 1938e Kuala lumpur, 1939e p.1617.
V. Thompson, op. cit. p.69.
105
106
107
10
109
International iabour
eview, 19kO, op. cit. p.69.
V. Thompson, op. cit. p.70.
Anxu1 Iert for the year 1938, op. cit. p.20.
.
I
P,T. Bauer, op. cDt. p.2#2,
i.:. Price, Annual Report øf the south majan
Labour Fund Boara 1959, Government PresE, Federation
of Malaya, 1960, p.11.
1J.o
1]_1
International Labour
.
eview Vol. XLVI, 6(1Dec. 19k2) p.752.
.
The New Immigration Law, Departiitent of InÍ'ormation
foi. the Cont?oller of Immigration, Federation of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 1952.
112
.
K.S. Sandillu, "Some Prelimuiary Observations of
the 0rigin
and Characteristics of Indian Migration
to Malaya 17861957" P&
on Mala7an History, Papers
submitted to the First International Conference of
South-East Asian Historians, Singapore 1962, p.67k
113 According to K. Davis, there are four periods
in the course of majan immigration. But the writer
126
concurs with the opinion of K.S. Sandhu in discerning
six periods in this movei1eut.
127
CHAPTER III
HISTORY OF INDIAN IIllIIGRATIQN
The Indian. Imig.ation Committee: An Evaluation
o
Its Work, Necessity and Achievements.
The Indian Immigration Committee was
formed in ]9O7 and it existed wholly in connection
witb Indian estate labour. A number of factors
influenced the formation al the Indian Immigration
Committee. The rise of the rubber industry in 1906,
with its unprecedented demand for labour in the
rubber estates, brought into being the Indian
Immigration Committee.1 The urgent need of labour
necessitated that some means would bave to be
found ta meet it. The Acting Superintendent of
Immigrants ìn the Annual Report for the year 1906
expressed this idea:
As the rubber already planted contes into
bearing, the labour force required to
deal with land now under cultivation
and it is to be hoped
will
that means may be fond fo securing
(enough immigrants).
increases
128
He thereThze suggested the formation of a Committee
to direct the import of immigrant labour.3 At the
same time labour was also required by the Government
services. Besides, the expenses incurred in recruiting
labour along private lines, either through Agency
Houses in India or by licenced recruiters were too
high. Indentured labour was considered expensive
..
.
.
.
and insufficient in quantity.
k
There was also the
attempt to control "crimping" of labour, under which
labourers, whether ïndentured or free, were attracted
by the higher wages offered and therefore left the
service of the employers who paid for them to be
brought over. Indeed the origin of the Indian
Iniigration Committee could be traced to the desire
of three important p1anters
Planters'
Association1
associations, the United
the Johore Planters' Association
and the Malay Peninsula Agricultural Association to
have the government set up a
ceutral labour bureau"
iIi. order to do away with crimping.5 In the words o
G.E
Turner:
129
One of the reasons why the Indian
:Emrnigrtiou Comniittee caine into being
was to stop all the burden cf iniporting
labour being thrown prito a Iew Íor the
benefit of the niany.
Penal and civil measures were useless to deal with
Crilipingb By 1907 the old nethods of recruitment
supplied inadequate labour, and many employers
importing Tamul labour were loud in their protests
against the general labour situation. Some thought
it justified that the Government should take action
to ameliorate the defect.
The solution of the problem was found in
1907, by the setting up oÍ' the Indian Immigration
Committee and its attendant, the Tamul Immigration
Fund. The Indian Immigration Committee was inaugurated
at a meeting held in Penang on 23ra. March 1907 at
eleTen o'clock in the morning.
The President laid
emphasis on the increasing demand for labour and
called for concerted action to be taken. Re urged
the need to stimulate emigration froi India and to
attract coolies to Malaya. Another member present,
3.30
the Hou. J. Turner, ezessed his opinion that
what was needed was a scheine to introduce labour
ozi
1are scale. At this meeting aU the membexs
agTeea to set up a system of taxation to meet the
cost o
importation of labour. This was the genesis
of the Indian Immigration Fund, At the next meeting
helä on lkth. Apri]. 1907 at 2.30 p.m. at the Court
oue, Ipoh, recommendations were made regarding
the zu1es for the operation of the
ind.8 After the
approval of the Governxneut the recoïmendation.s were
embodied in an
aactnient cited as "The Tami]..
Immigration Fund Ozdinance 1907t1 which was brought
into effect at the beginning of 1908. Much to the
annoyance of Indians, the Fund was designated
Uj1TT
which was defined as tlAsjatjc Native from Madras
Pr esidexic
of British India" .
The ludian Imiratio
Committee Was constituted under Section 3 of the
fTTafld1 Immigration Fund Ordinance".Thie Ordinance
was repealed by Ordiìiance No. XV o
1908, known as
"The Tamil Thaigration Fund Ordinance, 3.908." The
131
Ordinance authorised all employers to keep books
in the English 1anuage, showing the number of
Tamil 1abou'ers employed, the days in which they
had worked and the wages they were paid. The
Ordinance of 1908 was amended in 1909 and again
in 1911, ana by
912 the fuxidanenta1 legislation
for the Indian Immigration nachinery had been
enacted.1° The Taiail Imniigration Fund Ordinance
was first enacted in the Straits Settlements,
then similar statutes were passed in the Federated
Malay States and Johore. tJnder 161 Labour Code of
1912, the name of the Fund was changed to t'The
Indian Imigration Fund'
Eowever in 1923, another
Labour Code superseded the 1912 Enactment, and
the provisions regarding the Indian Immigration
Fund remained much the sanie.
The Fund was administered by the Controller
of Labour under the authority of the Indian Immigration
Committee)1 To start the functioning of the Tamil
Immigration Fund, loans of $50,000 from the Federated
132
Malay States and
5,OOO from the Johore Goverrmient
were given to meet the expenses incuzrea at the
first quarter of 1908, for it was only at the end
01 the quarter that assessment could be collected.
The6e were repaid in full by the end of 1913. 12
.
.
The Indian Immigration Committee consisted
of the following members: 6 official meiibers
the Controller of Labour as Chairman, the Deputy
Controller of Labour as Vice-Chairman, the Directors
oÍ the Medical Department,
he Public Works Department
and Irrigation Department and the General Mana&er
of the Federated Malay States Railways?3 The unofficial
members were the President of the United Planting
Association of
Malaya1
representatives of the planters
in Kedali, Province Wellealey, Perak, Selangor, Negri
Sembilan, Malacca, Johore and Kelantan, a prominent
business man usually from Pezrnng, ari Indian representatiTe
from the Straits Settlements and two Indian representatives
from the Federated Malay States.1k
The Controller of
L&bour1
J4alaya, spoke o!
133
the Indian Immigration Committee in the fo11owin
way during a meeting of the Federal Council in
September 1932;
s
4 ....... another Malayan
ganization,
which in the Federated Malay States and
in the Colony (S.S.) and under special
laws in the Unfederated Malay States,
exercises urisdjctiou and draws its
revenues whicb it spends in normal times
in recruiting labour and in abnormal
times, like these, in repatriation.15
In
fact1
the Indian Immigration Committee was set
up to supervise the recruitment of Indian labour
for the Colony, the Federated Malay States and
Johore. Eut later its work was extended to all
parts of Malaya with the exception of Prengganu
s
where there were very few estates. In the words
of Dr. 11.N. Parmer:
.5.5...... the promotion and regulation
of immigration as the committees
raison dtetre.]0
With the institution of the Indian Immigration
Committee the Indian Immigration Departmenta of
the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States
13Li.
were amalgamated. When the Labouz' Code of 1912 was
passes, the Labour Department was Constituted and
took over the thzties of the old Indian Xm.gation
Department 17
The formation of the Indian Xmmiration
Committee was not all that sniootb. It is tzue that
the Conunittee and the Fund were approved br many
planters and employers. But it is also true that
there wexe others who raised objections on the
ground that eiuployez's, who now had sufficient labour
would have to contribute to a fund, which would
ay
for the importation oí labourers for new estates
(their rivals), that the body of planters serving
on the Committee was not representative enough, and
that Singapore was to be excluded from the influence
of the Ordinance. In particular, the newly-fozrned
Rubber Groweres Association, consisting of British
companies, agency houses and individuals engaged
in rubber pi,oduction, was loud in its protesta against
the scheine. The Rubber Grower& Association vas
135
afraid that some planters were
1anning to open
up new plaritation3 with the help of the labour
imported under the Ordinance, so as to compete
successful1
with estates where there were established
labour fox'ces8 The Rubber Growers' Association
was opposed by the Planters' Association of Malaya.
The Government tried to give relief to the employers
who had imported labour before the formation of the
Committee by protecting them within three years
from the operation of the law)9 iowever the Planters'
Association of Malaya occasionally criticized the
work of the Committee. The bone of contention was
that the Planters' Association of Malaya wanted to
select the planters who could then sit on the Committee,
but the government reserved this right. The PAM argued
that the Fund administered by the Committe was derived
from the planters, and this should give them the
right to select the planters who could ait on the
Committee. But the government was adamant in reserving
.
.
this ri.ghta
20
136
The Indian Immigration Committee
introduced a system of assisted immigration which
took the following form:
An assessment on the amount of work done
by their coolies is levied on all enp1oyers
of Tamil labour, and the proceeds are
devoted to paying the passages over from
India of all Tamil coolies. A kangany
recrziting faz' a particular estate can
obtain free passages for the coolies he
collects if be is provided with a licence
issued by the Immigration Committee. The
licence is signed by the employer, who
guarantees certain wages and undertakes
that the deduction that can be made from
those wages on account of all expenses
incurred on the coolie's bsia1f before
his arrival on the estate shall in no case
exceed a certain definite maximum. If any
employer is found to be making deductions
fron the coolies' wages to an amount larger
than this maximum, then free passages from
India will no longer be granted to coolies
for bis estate.21
The employers therefore were required to pay assessment
on the number of days worked by all Indian labourers
in their employ. These assessments would form the
Indian Immigration Ñind which was used to finance
the import of labourers from South India.
ie aasessment
on an employer was decided by dividing the total number
137
of days worked by the lnâian labourers cii his
estate by the nwnber cl days in a quarter of the
year as determined by the Committee. Fron' 1925 on,
the total rnnriber of workìn
days in a month for
the labourer was determined by legislation to be
2k, thus a quarter of the year wouldamount to 72,
i.e. 3 x 2f. The number obtained by dividing the
total number of days worked by the Indian labourers
by the number of days in a quarter was then iultiplied
by a money rate determined by the Committee. For'
example, if the total number of working days cf
Indian labourers on an estate was 18,000 and the
quarter was fixei at 72 at a rate of $3, then the
assessnient on the employer would be 7O for the
quarter.22
ployers were required to send in to the
Labour Office at Penang on printed forms which may
be obtained free, certified retiarns of their Indian
labour for every quarter. The following shows a
example of these printed forms:
Qjarterly Return23
Return under Section 153 of Federated Malay States
Labour Code, 1912, showing the number of Tamil
labourers whose names are entered in the register
of Tamil labourers.
Number
of
names
entered
J
Total amount of Total number ITotal
payments to
of day& wor1arnount
labourers
4one
paid
Remarks
On daily On
On
On
ifor
j_n
sages
Fcontracdai1ycontractoverregistei(exclud- or piecwagesor piectime
Ing
-work
-work
Dvertirne)
Tamil
t
I
labottrers :
i
orking
n daily-
{
rages
I-
Tamil
Labourers
working
n
ontract
r piece-
!
I
I
i
i
I
rork
.1
1umber
of
rrnmes
entered
:egis tez
Total nu.inbei of days' work
credited in register
emarks
139
I hereby certify that the above is a correct
sumniary of the entries in my register of Tamil
labourers during the quarter ending
Date
191
Ezip1oyers.
The returns must be sent within a month of the
expiration of each quarter, i.e. in
Ari11
July,
October and January and should be addressed to the
Deputy Controller of Labour, Pexaang. The returns
were assessed according to the rates published
for each quarter in the Goverwnent Gazette and
each employer
would be informed of the amount he
had to pay. Unless the amount that was assessed
was sent to the Deputy Controller of Labour, Penang,
within 2]. days of the posting of the notice, the
employer would be charged interest at the rate of
8
per cent per annwn ou the amount assessed.2
Section
156
of the Federated Malay States Labour
Code 1912 imposed the levy o
two rates, one ou
ail Indian labourers ep1oyed and the other, a
1ko
special or extra rate on the Indian labourers
employed over and above the rzumber recruited from
India by the employers within the last twenty-four
months. The maximum assessment on each labourer
per quarter Usually would not exceed three dollars.
iployers were aleo warned that if they failed to
ti ey
send in the assessments/would be penalized by a
:ritie not exceeding five hundred dollars. Every
luxe inzposed by virtue of the Tantil Immigration
Ordinance would become part of the Immigration
Fund. These eniployers would be further penalized
by the withdrawal of kangazzy recruiting licences
from them, so that they would have ditficulty in
getting labour for their eetates.
The Controller of Labour, Nr. J.R.O. AJ.dworth
wrote of the Indian Immigration Fund in the following
way:
The Indian Immigration Fund is not part
of the general revenue of the Government.
It is administered solely in the interests
of the importers of Indian labour1 by the
Controller of Labour, under the authority
141
of the Indian Irnnaigratjon Comiittee,
which at present consists of three
official and six unofficial members.
The Government is the J.srgest contributor
to the Fund through the assessment it
pays on account of all labourers from
the Madras Presiaency employed in the
Railway, and Public 1York Department,
by the varioue 8anitary Boards and by
other departments 25
The purposes paie for by the Indian
Immigration \znd were:26
a) for the payment of free passages for
the emigrants and their families from
the Madras Presidency to the Federated
Malay States, Straits Settlements,
Johore, Kedah, Penis and KeJ.antan,
b) for the general expenses incn.rred in
connection with recruiting of labour
in districts Qf India,
o) quarantine charges on arria1 at Penang,
Port Swettenhatn or Singapore from India,
a) transport charges from these ports to
places of em1oyment for those who have
been provided with free passages fron
142
the Fund. These transport charges
included (i) the landing of such
immigrants, (iI) the sending of
telegrams by estate agents to employers
stating the nuniber of labourers
recruited for their estates.
e) repatriation to India,
f) payment of food and transport expenses
to repatriates and their dependants
from ports in Malaya to their villages
in India,
g) Maintenance of a Home27 for decrepit
Indian labourers,
h) for the payitent of interest upon the
money borrowed by the Indian Immigration
Committee
i) for the payment of the expenses incurred
in keeping registers of locally engaged
Indian labourers.
i) for the maintenanoe of the recruiting
depots in iuia28
k) occasionally for charitable purposes,
such as the donation of Rs. 200 to
a Children's Society in Madras, annual
support of the blind children at
Palacottah School for the Blind in
South Iudia
and iii August 192k, a
grant of Rs.1O,000 was donated to the
Government in South India for relief
work as a consequence of recent floods.
During 19k1, it was acreed to use part
of the Indian Immigration Fund to pay for the
maintenance and travelling expenses of Indian
labourers in search of work.
Thus, the Ft2nd could enable the Indian
Immigration Committee to pay all the costs of
transporting a labourer from his home in India to
his place of employment in Nalaya. By the end of
1913, the only expenses still paid by the employezs
were charges of feeding the labourexs at the
immigration depots in }falaa while waiting for the
employers, the charges of financial agents in
Indie and. commission to the kanganjes.29 This wa
indeed a great achievement on the part of the
:rndian innigration Conuuittee; for at the outset,
the Coniniittee could only pay for the cost of the
passage. At this stage, the employers were allowed
to recover from the labourers' wages ari anount
equal to their expenses cormected with importing
the labourers, including the amount paid to the
kanganies ae commission. But most employers persisted
in deducting large sums from their labourers' wazes
which also included the transportation charges
borne 'by the Fund. To fight against this, the
Committee decided that from January 1909 kangany
recri.ziting licences would not be iseued unless they
contained the stiu1ation that no dedtction wou1
be made from wages of the labourers on account o
importation expenses. In order to compensate the
employers, the Committee decided to pay them
recruiting allowances, in respect of each labourer
l'f 5
recruited. After 1913, when nearly the whole cost
o1 iinDortíng the labourers was borne by the
nd,
the recruitixig allowance was fixed at the rate
recommended b
the Committee which would cover
the commission paid to the kanganies. At this
eai'].y stage, the recruiting allowance paid to the
employer for every labourer recruited by him was
1O for a
Vf, but by 1936, it was increased to
labourer and his wife and $8 for a single man. To
quote the words of the Labour Departmeut Aanua1
Report for 1912:
recruiting would cost him (the
s s
em1oyer) very little more than the
assessment rate paid to the Immigration
Fund, provideä that the comnlissions to
kanganies are kejt within reasonable
linhits.:50
The Government bore all the expenses
connected with administering the
Funds
paying the
salaries of officials and clerks.31 Two Government
officials were in charge of the two emigration
depots in India: the Thiigration Agent at Madras
i46
and the Superintendent of
igration at Negapatam.
The8e two officials supervised these cains and
genera11
assisted in all matters coztncted with
recruiting. The modern camp at Avadi belonged to
the Indian Immig'ation Comnittee, and in 192
the
Committee toolt over from the Straits Settlements
and Federated Malay States the camp at Negapatam
The Government also paid a large annual subsidy
to the British India Steam Navigation Company
which maintained the weekly service from India to
the Straits, and turned over a nutber of ticIets
to the Committee. Notwithstanding all these expenses,
the Government had to pay assessments to the Committee
due to the fact that it was a major employer of
Indian labour.
With the introduction of assisted immigration
as fostered by the Indian Immigration Committee, it
appears that by 1910 the problem of ensuring
sufficient Indan1abaur for the rubber estates had
been solved. The work carried out by the Committee
1k7
was BO successful that by 1910 employers relt that
it was safe enough to dispense with indentured
labour. So partly because o
this, and partly on
moral grounds, indentured Indian labour was
abolished, and no new contracts were made after
June 30th. In the words of L.R. Price:
The new system save such good results
that importation to Malaya under the
indenture s7stem oeased for Indians
from June 1910.32
Thus the living testimony of the success of the
Indian Imniigration Committee was the abolitioi of
the recruitment of indentured labour in 1910. With
the help cf the Committee, labourer3 were brought
into Malaya either by kanganies, or they came in
as non-recruited or independent labourers. The
latter type of assisted non-recruited immigration
was favoured by the Committee, as it cost less
since recruiting allowances would not have to be
paid to employers. Eut this form of immigration
was contrary to the interests of the kangany and
hence very few attempts were made to promote it.
8
The Committee was apprehensive of undexmining the
kangany system of recruitmeit. But from 192, in
order to encourage non-recruited immigration, the
Committee decreed the payment of i2.00 to each
adult and
1,OO to each minor independent immigrant.
However, when the Government o
imposed a ban on assisted emigration o
India
unskilled
labour to )alaya in June 1938, no Iurther assessment
was collected from employers.33 By this time, the
original purpose for which the Committee and the
Fundwere created, i.e. to assist immigration of
Indian labourers into Malaya, bad ceased to exist.
At the last meeting of the Committee pre-war, held
on 23rd. July J.9fl, the controller of Labour as
Chairman o1 the Committee, related that in 1911 a
suggestion was made that assistance from the Fund
should be used to import Javanese labour. The
suggestion was dropped at that time, and at this
meeting the sanie suggestion was carried by 1k votes
to 1. Since 1938 there had been no immigration of
fresh Indian unskilled labour into Nalaya.and as
a result the estates stood in need. of inimigration
of other types of labour. When war broke out in
1939, an era of prosperity ensued in the rubber
and tin
industries1
and the demand for labour
became urgent. The ban inipoaed by the Government
of India accentuated the problem of labour shortage.
At the Indian Immigration sub-Committee meeting
held on 28th. Noeniber l9fI, rules and procethzree
for recruiting labour froni Netherland Indies were
pi.it forward. But unfortunately, the Japanese
Occupation intervened and. the work was dropped.
After the war the Committee met for the first time
on 21st. Nay 19kG. In 19k8, the same suggestion
pre-war came up for consideration, but it was not
adopted by the Indian Immigration
ommittee.
ç:!4ticizms of the Indiau Immigration Committee: It
can be said that the Indian Immigration Committee
provided the opportunity for the kanganies to
acquire affluence and power, and therefore helped
150
to perpetuate the shortcomings an.d abuses as
practised by the kanganies. The Coinniittee as well
Rs the Labour Departient were aware also of
bribery which was more often than not practised.
It is true that the Committee freni time to time
would take measures to combat theEe niaipractices,
but as Dr. J.N. Farmer puts it:
It was considered difficult to halt
practices between 'natives' and briber
was probably never effectively halted.-"
The weapons which the Committee could use were
mainly two: the Committee could cancel the licences
of kanganies found practising abuses, and the
payment of low commission to kanganies on the
understanding that they would riot have the funds
to deal in malpractices. In 1923, a legal limit
was placed on commissions, and the Indian ImmigratiDn
Committee and the Labour Department insisted that
the maximum commission would be ten rupees for
each labourer being recruited by the kangany.
The Committee did very little to ipr'ove
151.
the shipping facilities Lised to carry Indian
labourers to Malaya. Although there was no
agreement among medical and health officers of
the government of the Federated Malay States ae
to how bad the conditions of ships were, yet
there was no doubt that the ships were overcrowded
and insanitary. According to the Report of the
Protector of Indian Iabour of the Federated Malay
States for the year 190].:
The transport of the labourer under the
Government contract with the British
India Company leaves nothing to be
desired, as seen on the es. Bulimba
(26-9-01), the Company feeding the
coolies in a liberal way and paying
every attentio! to teir eleanlinese,
health and comfort.3°
This was reiterated in the words cl the Principal
Medical Officer when he spoke on behalf of the
Governnient in 1919:
raking into account the bad health in
India, the gxeat number of seasickness
on board and the fact that the death
rate of the coolies deliez'ed to estates
is at least three times as low as the
average in India the effect of other
152
conditions ou board the steamers cannot
be very bad..37
They may be right, but more generally I
incline to the idea that the ships were
overcrowded
and unsanitary tropical priscn&t38 as has been put
forward by the Senior Officer of the F.M.S. An
Article in the Malaya Tribune, a Singapore daily,
described that the Indian coolies were "snatched
like the prey of sea-gulls and packed in steamers
of unbearable suffocating nature, like sardines in
tis.tT39 Again, in the words cf A.IJ. Mukarranis:
The ships of the T class are admirably
suited for immigrants, yet there is
much that can be remedied, and much.
that can be done to assist a deck
passenser's comfort during the voyage.
It is not a day's journey that bas to
be made1 a ew hours inconvenience and
unpleasantness but a seven days voyage,
and in many cases this amounts to seven
days of concentrated misery. In the
first place there is much overcrowding.
Occasionally the numbers o deck
passengers are so packed together that
it would be impossible to swing the
proverbial cat among them. There is not
the slightetattempt made ta separate
families or sex, all are packed together
in a heterogeneous iass1f miserable
humanity ..............
153
The Indlaii Immigration Coimittee did not
like to incur inczeased expenditure, an
therefore
did not press for immediate reforms of shipping
conditions. It was only in 1927, when the
Government renewed its mail and immigration contract
with the British India Steam Navigation Company that
two new Itbetter typetl steamers were introduea. The
latter improvement appears to have been the result
of the efforts of the Agent of the Government of
India.
on the other band, the Indian Inirnigration
Committee renioved the incentive for crimping, because
it was no longer pofitab1e for an employer to try
to attract labourers from other employers instead
of importing Jais own. 1ow enough labourers could be
imported at the expense of the Indian Immigration
Fund. tu the words of Dr. Lennox A. Nill8:
"Whereby the attraction of Nabot3its
vineifard was diminished." Iii addition, it was the
Indian Ii*igration Committee and the sund that
15h.
encouraged the growth of a new class of Indian
immigrants, le. labourers who Caine to Malaya
without being recruited. Their passages were
paid by the Fund, and one significant advantage
was that they landed in Malaya without any obligation
to work foi any particular employer. This gave the
Indian immigrants an opportunity to find work on
estates that offered higher wages, 2 and to start
.
life in Malaya without debt
Moreover, the Committee
was an organization that had the power of controlling
the volunie and types o
migrants by influencing the
issue of kangany licences.
It was also the Indian Immigration Couunittee
that helped1 to a certain extent, to reduce the major
problem of "desertion" to a minor one, by stabilizing
the labour requirements of the country. The desertion
of labourers from estates had constituted a crave
problem during the hey-day of indentured labour.
But even after indentured labour was abolished,
"desertion" continued to plague the employers, as
1
shown by the Labour Department Annual Report f or
1913:
The numbers shown as having deserted
during the year are again very large,
amounting to k3,728 out of an, average
labour population of 155,662.3
Allowances, of course, must be niade for the fact
that ]st employers usually gave a wide interpretation
to the term
desertion and were inclined to include
under that heading all labourers who left against
their employers' wishes, whether there was any
infrinenient oÍ the law or not. But it still remained
true that "desertion" constituted a grave handicap
to employers oÍ Indian 1abour
In 1913, about 28.k5
per cent of the average labour population left their
employment without notice, in l9l
it was 26.61 per
cent and in 1915 it was 29.05 per cent. But due to
the help of the Indian Immigration
\rnd which made
possible an abundant supply of immigrant labourers,
the problem was reduced, as enough labourers could
always be recruited if any deserted the estate. By
156
1917, in spite of complaa.uts from some estates of
shortage of labour, there was no real shortage of
labour on niany ci the estate.
Apparently the primary purpose for which
the Committee was created was attended by- success.
It succeeded in encouraging and increasing a steady
flow of South Indian labour into Nalaya. The nunber
o
assisted immigrants juuiped from 2,7O9 in 1907
to 91,236 in 1913. Most employers and kanganies
were making increasing use of the Fund to recruit
labouxers from South India.
To sum up, I cannot
dc better than quote Mr. E.W.F. Gilnian's words:
But for the foresight which introduced
this unigue syetem before the great
boom of 1910 Nalaya would not have
enjoyed the comparative freedom
which it since has from labour
difficulties and the development of
the great rubber plantation industry
would prpably have been seriously
impeded.
:1.57
The Pattern cf Indian Migration to Ma1aa: a
Critical Eeview of theystens of Recruitnient.
The pattern of Indian immigration to
Malaya was mainly imfluenced by the ways under
which the Indians were recruited to emigrate out
of ludia. But of course not all Indians who
migrated to Malaya were of the recruited end
assisted type: distinction being frequently made
between assisted and unassisted immigrants. Assisted
immigration co!rlprised the stem by which labourers
were financially helped to enter into Malaya. Under
unassisted illÌrÌIilation, no help was given to assist
the Indians, who therefore were indejendent immigrants.
But the great bulk of Indian iznniirants to Malaya
were of the assisted type.
Within the category of assisted inmilgration,
there were three difíerent types Under the first
type labourers were assisted on the basis o
indenture contracts, while under the second form
they pere assisted on the basis of kazagany-cntracts.
The third type consisted of unrecruited assisted
inunigration. However by 1910 the indenture system
was abo1ished
and immigi'ation under this fo'm
was replaced by the kangany system of immigration.
But by the 1930's this was superseded by unrecruited
system oÍ assisted immigration.
The movement of Indians to Malaya started
under the indenture system
when the Tamil and
Telugu labourers were first brought to work on
sugar and coffee plantations for a period of three
years.
Indentured labourers were engaged under
the Indian Immigration Ordinance of 188k. According
to this law, the labourers had to be registered an4
bad to execute three-year contracts as soon as they
art'jved at the Straits or to repay the advances
recered before they came. This law was re-enacted
in Ordinance VII of 1899 and was also retained by
the Indian Tmnrtgration Ordinance VI of 1904. The
indenture system was devised to meet the requirements
o;
the sugar plantations; later coffee-planters also
19
x'esorted to this system to recruit 1abourezs. But
indentured labourers were also recruited fo
those
rubber estates where the conditions were so
unfavourable that free labourers would not go there.
After the
erio
o
indenture was over
the labourers
could either settle down on the estates or return to
India.
The main features of the indenture system
in Ta1aya were three years of regulated labour,
denial o
the right to change the employer or place
of employment, recruitment of labour units instead
of by families, excesses of insu to women labourers,
payment by the employers of the charges for
recruitment, and the denial of increased wages in
spite of increased profits and prices. Against these
defects, there were some compensation as free housing,
medical attendance, a fixed standard of wages and
other amenities which were provided by the empioyers.'
But of course eTen with these coiupensation, it is
apparent that the disadvantages of the indenture
systei far outweiçhecI the advantaes
The system
of indexture in Malaya diUered slightly from that
practised in other British colonies. In Malaya
indentured labourers were zecruited for the
enipoyers by private agencies whereas in other
British colonies the Government there recruited
indentured labourers and made them available for
employers.50 Usually the indentured coolies had
to be exantined by the Medical Officers at the
depots prior to being dispatched to the Straits.
The Medical Officer would turn away any labourer
whose hands were not hardened by manual labour,
for this would imply that the labourer did not
belong to an agricultural caste. In the words of
E.V. Carey:
Each man was made to use the mammotby
or changkol in the presence of Dr. Hardakar
until thiiieat an off bis back, in order
that his knowledge of the use of this
instruient, which is more commonly used
than any other for d.gging purposes,
might be thoroughly tested.1
The indenture system was defective fron
i6i
many points of view. The defects were so
Iariug
that very often it had been designated as slavery,
as has been put forward by Sir
il1ia
Hunter.
Others like Gokhale, Iahatina Gandhi and C.F. Andrews
regarded it as semi-slavery. Perhaps the comment
of K. Davis is tnoze appropriate: "a Ia1f-way s tage
between slavery au1 free labour." In recruiting
indentured labourers professional recruiters were
employed. These professional recruiters were usually
paid according to the number of labourers recruited.
Therefore they were bound to paint unduly optimistic
pictures of
working and living conditions in Malaya
in order to attract as many labourers as possible.
To use the words of Dr. L.A. Nuls:
Since their sole interest was to earn as
much as possible, their account of conditions
in Malaya sometimes displayed the same high
standards of unaminelled imagination as
Irish folklore.2
These recruiters were inevitably a class of professionals,
adept in every art of recruitment, trying to profit
at the expense of the wretchedness and ignorance of
the Indian peasants. They would "cast their nets
and entrapped their vìctim8"53 in districts of
Indian villages where crops had failed, and in
pilgrim centres where tens o
thousands of illiterate
labourers gathered together. By hook or by crook
the recruiters would lead them to the
niration
depots. In return for recruiting inaenturecì labourers
the agents were paid ?s.l6 per head for every coolie
brought to the depots and passed by the Medical
Officer. The recruiters might not have to spend
any money on the labourers recruited. Thus the
indenture system helped to reinforce the ma1rac tices
of the professional recruiters, who are described as
men who as long as they secure
recruits, care little how they get them;
and consequently command neither the
respect nor the confidence of the inhabitants.
This was reiterated in the words of Captain B. Fischer,
the British Consular Agent at Karikal in 1875:
........ recruiters, who owing to their
peculiar profession were an eager, callous
and too often an utterly unscrupulous
race of merz,52
i63
He suggested that the way to counteract the
influence of the professional recruiters was to
have the working conditions in Malaya advertised
in the simplest lauguage. At arie of the Legislative
Council meetings, a
mezither condemned the attitude
of the recruiters who exploited indentured labour
for their own benefit and not for the piantere.6
However the only safeguard provided by the Indian
Government against the nialpractices 01' the professional
recruiters was to insist that recruiting of indentured
labour should be done by '1en of
espectability
and
that these recruiters should be licenoed.
There was objection to the indenture system
on the ground that the indentured labourers left
India without adequate knowledge of the nature of
their work on the plantations. Against this it can
be argued that there was always the contract to
enlighten the labourers and to prevent gross abuses.
Perhaps the words of Dr. N
right note:
angu1ee strike the
1-6k
E:ow could a contract be something real
when one party was entirely ignorant
o:1 the nature of the work and of the
environnient in which he would have to
live ?57
Often the indenture contract was the result cl
igiiorance on the part of the labourers or fraud
on the part of the professional recruiters. The
gist of it is that more often than not the contract
was a "fictional" one. The nature and conditions
of work to be performed by the indentured labourers
were not stipulated in the contracts they had to
sign before leaving India. When they found the
conditions appertaining to estates
intolerables
they could not withdraw from the contract. Moreover
the indentured labourers were placed under a special
law which would penalize them for any trivial breaches
of the contract. The plight of the indentured labourers
can very well be imagined. In the words of E. Dennery:
Those departing were still so ignorant
as to their new masters, their work
and the difficulties of their new life
as to make the insistence upon their
willingness to go entirely valueless.
The impossibility of bzeaking a
contract ........
1owever great his
disillusionment on his arriva, freiuently
drove the coolie to 5uicide.5°
Indeed the fundamental objection to the indenture
system was that the labourer was forced to serve
the period of his contract. At first the contract
signed by the indentured labourer covered a period
of three years, but later it was reduced to six
hundred days.59
Another deThct i
the inìenture srste
was that among the indentured labourers there was
a great difference in the proportion of men to
women. This, coupled with the structure of the coolie
lines which made privacy impossible, was a prolific
source of iorality and vice, and social diseases
were common. Violent crimes and suicides became a
feature of the Indian indenture system in
Malaya.
Wages to the indentured labourers were on a
very
lowscale. There was a great difference in the wages
between free labourers and indentured labourers. On
i66
estates in Selangor the difference was froni 50
per cent to 100 per cent in
avoin' of the free
coolies. Besides, the wages of the indentured
labourers would remain the satt'e even though the
costs of living might go up. The wages would be
agreed upon at the time when the labourer was
engaged. ¶e indenture system was also objected
to on the ground that during the time stipulated
on the
contract1
the employers would try to work
the indentured labourers as hard as possible and
to maintain them on as little as possible. When
the period of indenture was over, the employers
would try their best to renew the contracts if
the labourera were still able to work, but would
repatriate them if they proved unable.
This
meant that during the period of indenture the
energy and life-blood of the labourers would be
sapped away, and when they became useless they
wo].d be discarded by the employers. The compensation
given in the form of free housing, iedical attendance
167
ana other ameuities duxing the period of indenture
would only be a sop to the indentured labourers,
and could never niake up ior the inju5tice incurred.
The system was unjust in that the balance of
edvantage in the contract of service lay always
with the employers.
In addition, the indenture system was
unsatisfactory even froi
the employers! view-point.
Indentured labour was expensive and poor in. quality.
To borrow the words of the Controller of Labour:
Coolies collected by professional
recruiters are not the agricultural
labourers who are required in Malaya;
they are more often the sweepings of
the towns and black-guards arid loafers.
All the defects of the indenture system
were summed up by the prominent Indian leader,
Gopal Krishna Gokhale during bis address to the
Imperial Legislative Council:
Under this system, those who are recruited
bind themselves, first to go to a distant
and unknown land, the language, usage and
customs of which they do not know, and
where they have no friends and relatives.
I ..
Secondly, they bind themselves to work
there for any employer to whom they ay
be
whom they do not know and
who does not know them, and in whose
choice they have no voice. Thirdly they
bind themselves to live there on the
estate of the employer, miist not go
anywhere without a special permit, and
must do whatever tasks are assigned to
them, no matter however irksome those
tasks riay be. Fourthly, the binding is
for a certain fixed period, usually
five years, during which time they
cannot voluntarily withdraw frct the
contract, and have no means of escaping
from its hardships, however intolerable.
ifthly, they bind themselves to work
during the period for a fixed wage,
which invariably is lower, and in some
cases very much lower, than the wage
paid to free labour around them. And
sixthly, and lastly, and this to my
mind is the worst feature of the system,
they are placed under a special law,
never explained to them before they left
the country, which is in a language which
they do not understand and which imposes
on them a criminal liability for the most
trivial breaches of the contracts, in
place of the civil liability which usually
attaches to such breaches. Thus they are
liable under this law to imprisonment with
hard labour, which may extend to two and
j_n some cases to three months, not only
for fraud, not only for deception, but
for negligence, for carelessness and
will the Council believe it?
for even an impertinent word or esture
to the manager or his cvez.seere.°2
allotted1
169
There had been no lack of criticism on
the indenture system, and in many of the National
Congresses and. Indian Legisletive Councils held
in India, violent protests against the System were
heard. Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, one of the leaders of
the
ndian Nationalist Party spoke against !Tthe
ineffable en1ess disgrace of tho indenture system"63
at a pan-Inda.an meeting held at AllahaI,ad in 1917.
The jucenture systeni was described by Nr. Joseph
EeaurxLont, the ex-Chef Justice of British Guiana
from 1563 to i868 as
a nlonstDous rotten system, rooted
grown in its stale soil,
enrnJ.ating its worst abuses and only the
more dangerous because it presents itself
under false colours, whereas slavery has
upon
slavery1
the brandpf infamy written upon it
forehead
Dr. Lanka Sundaram commented on the system this:
Under such a law, there is no human touch
between master asid servant as is the case
in all civil contracts governing the
work-a-day forms of service.5
By the beginning of the twentieth Century
Indian public opinion clamoured for the abolition
170
0± the indenture system. Due to the rising position
of Inaia as a nation, it wa
felt to be an insult;
and the system was regarded as inconsistent with
.
.
the sentiment of natona1 self-respect.
66
The
indenture system was important not only in the
economy of Eritish territories: it had its
repercussions in the politica]. field. As the
Government of India wrote to the Secretary of State
for India:
Foi:' Indian politicians1 moderate and
extreme alike, consider that the existence
this system, which they do not hesitate
o
to call by the name of sla-ery brands
their whole race in the eyes cf the British6
Ipire with the stigma of he1otTy
Colonial
Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders took up
the indenture system as a question o
national
importances The inevitable result was the abolition
of the system, which came earlier in Malaya than in
other parts of the British Empires It was in 1910
that the system was abolished. 0f course the evil
did not stop by this year, for although fresh
171
recruiting under indenture was prohibited, there
were still labourers whose indentures bd not
expired yet. These indentures were a11oved to
run their course and by 1913 the last indenture
expired. Hence the evil of the indenture system
for Indiau labourers came to an ench
However, against all the critiizms
levelled at the indenture system,
. Davis has
the following to say on behalf of it:
It enabled business enterprise to
tranefer labour to newly developing
areas, and yet restrained that labour
from immediately taking holdings of
its own where unexploited land was
abundant .......... It did imply a
social gulf between employer and
labourer, but it held the possibilit
of eventual freedom for the ].atter.6
The indenture system was a. step ahead of slavery,
for it baa been universally recognized that the
system, however bad, was only a temporary
whereas slavery was permanent. The system was a
device used to secure labour for the early plantations
and it remained useful until it was eventually
)72
replaced by the kangany system cf recruitment.
The kangany sy-steni was so called because
of the peculiarly important role of the kangany.
The sate was first used in. Malaya
in the 1890t8, but it was not comion1y resorted
to until the beginning of the twentieth Century.
Then restrictions on Indian emigration to Malaya
were removed in 1897, it was found more convenient
to recruit labour by nieans of kanganies. Although
by 1900 indentured labour continued on the sugar
plantations, Government clejartments arid a few
estates, it was kangany-recruited labour which
became the mainstay of the rubber estates. In
1902 the proportion of uziindentured labourers in
2
the Straits Settlements was 5, but by 1907 it had
risen to b.
Under the Indian Thtigration rules of
1923, it was laid down that a kangany should be a
South Indian belonging to an agricnitural class.
He should have been employed for not less than
173
three months uxder an employer for whom he would
try to recruit labourers from his ow-n village.
Oi
the estates the kangany usually acted as ari
intermediary between the planters and the labourers.71
The 1augauy was usually COZLSC±aus of his own social
superiority,
or be was generally chosen from a
caste rather higher than that o1 the labourers
he was hired to recruit. ¶10 D. J.N. Parnier, the
kangany system was more than a means of recruitment;
it was also a method o1 employziieiat on the estates.
In fact,
on the plantations, in a group of emigrants,
be attains the position of umpire and
judge.7
The karigany systeni of recruitment in
Malaya differed slightly front that which prevailed
in Ceylon. Firstly, the tundu system73 of advances
was present in Ceilon while it was absent in Malaya.
Secoridly the kangany system in Malaya was based
not so much on the family system as was the case
in Ceylon. This was due to the fact that in Malaya
17k
the kanCany was not vested with too much responsibility
and authority in financial affairs. The disproportion
between the sexes also corroborates the evidence
that the family systei did not exist in Malaya. At
any rate, with the ui-gent demand for labour on the
newly developed rubber plantations, kanganies broubt
in people who were not from their own villages and
definitely bad no connection with their faniilies.
In sharp contrRet to the system operating in Malaya,
the system in Ceylon was entirely patriarchal in
character. On the plantations there, the labour
force was dividea into smaller groups, each under
a sub-kangany or silara-kangany; each silara-kany
was responsible to the head kangany. As the patriarch
of the whole labour force under his charge, the
kanganr conducted all the financial affaira of the
estate with the labourers through silara-kanganies,
except for the payment o
waes.7k That the kangany
system was based on the family unit was due to the
proximity of Ceylon to India, which.
aoilitated
175
the migration oÍ women to the island nearly. The
sexes in Ceylon were evenly matched for the women
could easily be induced to nirate to Ceylon.
Whenever an estate manager required
labour, he would select his own recruiter fron
among his labour force and applied to the Indian
Immigration Committee at Penang for licences, which
would be issued to kanganies free of charge on the
authority of the Chairman of the Committee. The
procedure was that blank licence forms75 would
have to be completed, and to be returned to the
teputy Controller of Labour at Penang for registration
and signature. These licences would be countersigned
by the Agent of the Government of India in Malaya
after seeing the kanganies personally.6 The number
of recruits the kanganies could engage was generally
limited to twenty.
ut sometimes they could recruit
labourers up to the number of fifty. Generally the
number of licences issued depended considerably on
the abnormal rise and fall in the price of rubber.
1'? 6
When. the price of rubber rose, there would be a
scramble 1or labour and hence more licences woi.1
be issued. On receipt of his licence, the kangany
would proceed to the Office of the Figrant Agent
either at Madras or Negapatam to register hi
licence. After this, the kangaziy would make hi
way to one of the offices of his enip1oyers
financi). agents in India. He would either go to
Messrs. Binny and. Comany1 Madras or to Nessrs.
the Madura
Company1
Negapatafl. These firme were
also the agents of the British Inòia Steam Ha'igatin
Company. Besides theee two, there was also the
Malay Peninsula Agricultural Association Agency
in Madras and Negapatani which he could go
here
was no obligation on the part of the employers to
use the above mentioned firms. Sometimes the
employers would make other arrangements, but in
practice these firms enjoyed a virtual
nionooly.77
Arrangements were made between the employer and
these firme to finance the kanganyts work and to
177
pay commissjoiis to the kanany for each labourer
produced aid shipped to the Straits. These ageiits
would cb1e to their sub-agents in 4alaya concerning
the number oÍ labouxers recruited for any estate.
These local ageits would then inforii the employers
who would be able to know the number of labourers
recruited for them.
After the kangany had receiea an aavance
from the financial agents, he wouJ4 go to his own
and neighbouring villages to recruit labourers.
There he would
spin the glorious tale of Malaya, flowing
and shepherd
with milk and honey
their flock acros0the Bay of Bengal at
so much per bead.
Many a time the kangany would tell bis recruits
that the nature of work on the rubber plantations
was
to drive kaka (crows) away.T?9 Perhaps he
would tell the i)4jterate and poverty-stricken
villagers:
Under the pal maram(rubber tree) you
can. dig treasure.80
1178
of. course those villagers were ready to believe
the kanCany when the latter dazzled them with gold
sovereigns and other kinds of jewels. Little did
the villagers know that the wealth of' the kangany
lay not under the p
marant
but in his ability
to paint rosy pictures out of the sordid conditions
of life on the rubber plantations. The kangany wae
he1ed in this by the advertisements which were
displayed in some of the railway stations and
public offices, showing magnificent plac
where
the India coolies would never have the opportunity
of visiting once they arrived to work on the estates.81
When the kaugauy had recruited sufficient
labourers, he would take them to the nearest railway
station1 and from there to the Straits Government
Depots at Avadi in Madras o
Negapatam. The fares
for taking the labourers to the depots at Avadi or
Neapatam were usually paid by the recruiting
Inspectors, iÍ there happened to be one around;
or by the kangany himee]i who would later recover
the advances from the Engration Agent at Madras
or Superintendent of the Eniration Depot at
Negapatam1 I
he paid for the fares
kanganr must secux'e
then the
receipt from the Railway
Booking clerk for the amoinit of tickets paid by
him. When the kanganies and their coolies arrived
at the Enigration Depot, they were met by a clerk
who conducted tbeiai to the depot. Once they entered
the place, the coolies were not allowed to be
taken into eating shops where substitution might
take place. As soon as the recruits were shipped
from the
depots1
the kangany would receive his
commission, in which the advances he had formerly
received would be subtracted first.
The kangany-recruited labourers were
carried by the steamers of the British India Steam
Navigation Company, which were run weekly between
Madras and Negapatam and the Straits Settlements.
The rate charged perpassenger was Rs.12 from
Madras and
from Negapatam. This rate included
food charges durino the Voyage which took about
eight days from Madras, and. six days from Neapatani.
As soon as the immigrant labourers arrived at the
Straits
at
ett1emeiits, they were quarantined either
enang or Port Swettenham. These quarantine
stations were maintained by the Government, but
the feeding charee were boze by the Inan
Imniigration Fund. If the arriving ship had a clean
bill of health the coolies were kept in the quarantine
station for seven days. On arrival, their clothes
would be disinfeted and they would be vaccinated,
If the vaccination did not take effect, they would
be re-vaccinated on the eighth day when they were
discbarged.82 After
quarantines
the immigrant
labourers were removed to the depots at Penang
and Port $wettenhaiii. There they awaited collection
either by the kangany of an estate for which they
had been recruited or by some responsible person
sent over by the employer.
he kangany-recruited labourers were
first heJed by individual employers who financed
their passages from India. They did not enter into
any contract or indenture when they arrived in
Malaya. But they were expected to
advance they had received,8
ay back the
But when the Indian
Immigration Committee was set up in 1907,
kanpany-recruited labourers were assisted to
immigrate into
a1aya at the expense of the
Committee. Of course the revenue of the Cormnittee
was derived from the assessments levied on employers
of all Indian labour. But from that tinie onwards,
the burden of financing the assisted immigration
of Indian labour to Malaya was shared equally by
all employers, instead of limiting a few to shoulder
the burden. From 1909, no deduction was 'ade from
the wages o± the labourers on account of the
importation expenses. In return for this, recruiting
allowances were paid by the Committee to the
employers.
The kangaiiy system of recruitment bad its
evils. It Is true that the system of giving
licences to these kanganie
was instituted in
1901, yet the Indian 1abouers were so illiterate
and helpless that little could be done to protect
them from deception, ma1txeatment and injustice.
Under the indentuTe system the labourer was exploited
for the benefit of the employer for a specified
period but under the kangany system the labourer
was left open to victimization by the kangany. On
most estates the managers usually were unable to
speak directly with the labourers. This allowed
the karigariles or niandors to get too much influence
over the labourers.Bk Very often the labourers
became the kangani.es
debtozs and the Icanganies
would be gi'en the opportunity to "squeeze" them.
In the words of Professor Lennox Mills
The defects were that it was very
difficult to pre'v-ent the kangany front
raking misrepresentations of 'squeezing'
the coolies who were in his debt when
they were employed in Malaya, and that
the e'Qil of crimping continued unabated.
183
The theme is also summed ut
tri the following:
The evils of the kangany system such s
the undue dependence of the labourers
on the kangany, the 'squeezing' of
labourers an undesirable ractices .n
recruitment far out-weighed its single
benefit to the employers of securing
'a su,1X almost exactly equated to
demand. o6
One evil that was perpetuated by the
kanany system WRS that the kangany would force
the labourers to go to work on the fields even
though they might not be fit for the day. This
was due to the fact that besides his fiied monthly
pay for supervising the work of the labour force,
the kangany was paid
by the estate a commission
of two cents per diem for every labourer who turned
out to work. The commission was called 'head money.TT
The method was that if fifty persons turned out
to work for thirty days, the turn-out would be 1,500.
So the kangany would receive over and above bis
salary the amount of thirty dollars, i.e. 1,500
z U.
It can very well be wagined that the kangany would
use every means to force th
labourers to wc,rk
ori the fields, According to the enactment, each
kaugany-recrujted labourer ha
the ?ight to leave
the estate by giving one month's notice to the
employer. But on most estates, the ordinary coolie
had no access to the ranage., so that be would have
to g-ive notice to the manager through the kangany.
1±' the labourer left the estate, then the kangany
would suffer the loss of two cents per day which
foxmed part of his tihead moriey. The natural
outcome WaB that the kangan
would tell the coolie
that the discbaxge was not agreed upon and therefore
the labourer had. to stay on the estate. Ori some
estates, some employers would not accept notice
to leave from the labourers, unless they could be
sent back to India and not work elsewhere on some
estates,8
i
the opinion o± the planters, tithe
kangani. and gang sy5teme do not tend to encourage
settled conditiona, and are moreover Very definitely
.
.
.
.
.
in opposition to the efficient working of an estate."
88
185
To safeguard the labourers from th
evils perpetuated by the kanganies precautions
were taken. The Straits Governnient officers at
Negapatai and Avadi warned the kananies that any
irregular practices on their part would result in
cancellation of their licences. If any recruits
were found to corne from vi1laes other than their
own, they would be rejected by the Eniration
Agents. Boys under sixteen years cl age and muor
girls would be rejected unlethey were accompanied
by their parent5. Single women would not be allowed
to emigrate unless they were accompanied by male
relatives who could look after them. Whenever
recruits were rejected at the
at Avadi or
Negapatam1
nigration Depots
their railway fares to their
own villages would be paid for them from the accounts
of the financial agents of the estate, Whether these
would be deducted from the commissions of the
kanganies would be up to the discretion of the agents.
Another safeguard provided was that the coiuiis?ions
paid to the lcananies were kept low, about ts.1O,
for if high commiesions were paid, the kanganies
would sim1y buy recruits from professional
recruiters. These recruits would be of poor
quality1
and usually when they arrived in Malaya they would
fall ill and d±,8
Measures were also taken to
en5ure that the recruits left with the consent of
the village headman. Each recruit Was to be
interrogated by the village headman, in order to
check that no compulsion was used. Once again at
the
iiigration Depots, the Protector of Emigrants
would interrograte him to make sure that he was
leavïn
of his own accord.
Of course it was very difficult to do
away
with maipractices and bribery completely. It
j_s true that much had been done to ensure about
the willingness of the labourer to emigrate, but
it serveE well to remember that the Indian
Government was up against callous and unscrupulous
men who would stop at nothing to line their pockets!
187
3ortetinLes the coolies wou1
emigration depots
be shoved into the
and conditions of labour under
which they were recruited were not properly
explained to theni. In soiiie cases the flnigration
Agent did not see the recruits until they were
ready to be shipped away.90 it is true that
precaution was taken to prevent kidnapping of
recruits by the kanganies:
Twice a day at Avadi and every morning
at I1egapatain, all petitioners who have
come in search of lost relatives are
allowed into the camp, and i± they find
the persons they are seeking they remore
them without let or hindrance.91
This can also be testified by Mr. tilnian who wrote:92
At 10 oc1ock every morning all 000lies
in the depot are made to sit in rOw5
and a procession of claimants is
conducted up and down the lines, so
that there is really very little chance
of a coolie shipping across if his
relatives or his employer are anxious
to prevent him doing so.
ut very often than not the kanganies would resort
to bribery to evade this obstacle:
If labourers were kidnapped the procedure
would be - the person seeking the
labourer would o to the village munsif
for a certificate. With the certificate
in hand, he would show it to the Officer
at the emigration depot. Be would be
allowed to look at the parade of labourers
inside the deot Bat if the cauay was
clever (as nost kanganies Were) the
Officer would be bribed, an zneans would
be devised to conceal the psrticular
labourer from the eyes of the person who
wanted to find. hiiti. The usual bribe
consisted cf a payment of fifty rupees
far every twenty labourers recruited,
while the kangany would get the remaining
150 rupees as commission. It is very
3
difficult for this bribery to be discovered.
This was reiterated by Varathappan Kangany in the
following words:
... at depots the kanganies had
to bribe the officers at about one rupee
per head, even i the labourers were
o1untary ones.9
trawing the happy medium between these comments,
it is safe to conclude that there is at least
some measuZe of validity in them.
Eowever kangany recruitment was not
without its advantages. One good effect of this
method of recruitment was that it helped to
transplant the Indian commrnty in a new region.
The labourers were usually recruited in a group
and on the estates in Malaya, the individua].
Indian could feel at home aniong his own community,
with its own Hindu teniple.95 Another advantage
wbich cou]
be derived from the kanany system
of recruitment was that the labourers who were
assisted to immigrate were not required to enter
into contracts which would bind them to the estate
for a certain period. Thus one of the abuses o
the indenture system was stamped out. In fact
the kangany recruits were legally rtfreefl labourei's.
Kangany-recruited labour was cheaper for commissions
paid to kanganies were lower than those paid to
protessional recruiters.. The cost of recruiting
labour by means of kanganies was only about
three-fourths of that for indentured labour. This
might haTe been the reason which had influenced
the planters tF adopt this system. Moreover
kangany-recruits were physica1l
superior to
indentured
i96
The value of the kaigany system of
recruitment cannot be ignored. 'It had had. the
advantage of regulating the up1y to the demand
and of canalizing the recruits to the places where
they were most needed."97 Perhaps the best approach
to comment on the advaxttages accruing to the
kanany system is contained in the words of the
Controller of Labour:
If the main object of ny system of
control of recruitment i8 the avoidance
of deception and misrepresentation, and
the elimination of profits which might
produce abuses, particu1ar1,r in the
case of uneducated and czedu1ous people,
it would be difficuJt indeed to devise
a better system to attain these ends
than the Malayan Kangany system.9°
The kangany system of recruitzent began
to decline in the 1930's. In 1920, only 12 per
cent of the Indian 3abourers immigrating into
Malaya were non-recruited, while the remaining 88
per cent were recruited by kangades. But by 193?
the proportion of non-recruited inin-igrantz had
i 9].
risen to 89 :pex cent of the Indian inunirante
while the proportion of kangany-recruited labour
feil to li per cent. En August 1930 assisted
immigration was suspended because of the slump
in the tin and rubber industries, and during this
period only a few non-Decruited assisted inmiig'ants
were allowed to enter Malaya in order to join
their relatives.99 By May l931l, when there was
a recovery in these two ixdustries, the Government
of India agreed to perniit a limited amount of
non-recruited workers to be assisted to enter
Nalaya, up to the quota of 20,000 athilt males. This
&ieement anticipated the end of the kangany systeni,
fox' the services of the kanganies were by-passed.
The final end caine in 1938 when a ban was imposed
by the Government of India on assisted em±ratioxz
of unskilled labour, although the year before, the
licences issued to kanganies had decreased to 97.
Thereafter it was used only for the palm-oii
estates and other estates which had no recraiting
192
e'1-ounds in India.'00
The reasons for tho decline of the
kangany system may be attributed to a combination
of sevea1 factors. The Sastri Report of L937 had
sounded the death-knell of the systeni when it
called for its abandonment. The Rt. !on. V.S.
Srinivasa Sastri had acicnowIeded the advantages
which could be derived from the kangany eystem
it was a great help to eni1oyers for it could
regulate supply of labour according to the demand;
it reduced the amount of work for the Labour
Department.'01 But 3t111 he recommended that the
system should be completely abandoned. Why it was
actually abandoned can be explained by the bad
economic conditions which prevailed in southezrn
India. There was no more need for the kanany
system when conditions of life in Malaya became
quite well known among the villagers in India
and when the Indians wexe becoming more sophisticated.
The policy of the Indian Immigration Committee vas
193
rt1y- resonib1e, for it encouraged vo1untar
assisted irrtmiratio
adult
n:i
ty îaying a $2 bonus to each
1 to a iinor depeident wio
ieented
himself at the emigration depot in India. In
tddition the better rorking conlitions in
1a1aya
facilitated the abandonment oÍ the kanaiy syster
What actually struck at the root of the system
was the han imposed on aisted enigration of
unskilled Labour in 1938. By that tiiie it became
an ïnsignificari.t part of the mirationa1 system
in Malaya.
102
When the kangany system began. to declinìe
in the 1930t5, it was being replaced by non-recruited
assisted immigration. At first this system was used
to supplement the kanany recruits, which were not
enough to meet the ever-increasing demand for labour.
The form o
unrecruited assisted immigration was
definitely an advantage over the kangany system for
it was cbeape
as no commiaioia had to be paid to
, ic.&na32ie8. Second1
With unrecruited asited
i 9k
immigration the abuses, entailed in the relationship
between the karigany and the labourers aisappeared.
The rattern of non-xecruited assisted imraigration
was that 1bourers who wished to go to Malaya
independently of the kangany should present thetnse]es
at the Enigration depot at Avadi or Negapatam. when
the
nigration Comniissioner or the Assistant
igration Commissioner was satisfied that they were
bona fide labourers, they would be given assista2ac
to enter Malaya at the cost o
the Indian Immigration
Fund. When they were discharged from the imunigration
depots in Malaya, they could proceed to any place
of employment.103 This forni of immigration became
poptlar after the 1920's, as is borne out by the
following table:
195
Table xi:10k
roportiou of Indian Non-recruited
Imnigration to Kangany Recruited
Immigration.
Percentage o
Kangany Recruited Non-recruited
Imniirants into Non-recruited. to
Immigrants into
Kangany Recruited
Malaya
Malaya
Immigrants into
Year
Ma1ya
1926
102,200
25,600
20.0
1927
75,800
28,600
27.3
1928
13,300
9,400
1929
kLI,300
26,000
36.9
1930
21,200
12,900
37.8
193k
1,fOO
31,800
95.7
1935
1,300
13,900
91k
1936
O0
2,kOO
82.7
1937
5,300
42,200
88.8
3,500
97.2
1938
1
100
1
Besides assisted forms of immigration,
unaeeisted immigration was also widely used after
the depreeion of the 1930's.
ormer1y it was only
limited to merchante and traders, the professional
and clerical classes. But iicreasirig labourers
paid their passages to niigrate to Malaya because
they were attracted by stories o! better workiu
ard living conditiorts there and by the availability
of emp].oymeit in the barbouz and public works at
Singapore. No 'igures are available to assess the
volume or unassisted labour migratioi, but accordin.g
to the estimate of the Labour Department of Malaya
2
for the year 1936, more thaz
of the unassisted
immigrants into the country were labourer?5 Uaassisted
immigration increased from 12 per cent of the total
imixiiration in 1920 to 38 per cent in l93k
89 per cent zi.ri 1937.
106
and to
The obv.ous reason Thr
unassisted immigration was the wishes of the labourers
and others to avoid a weeI'
detention at the
quarantine camps. The reilations of the quarantine
camps were very strict for &ssisted labourers, and
there was always the risk ot being rejected after
having taken the trouble to come to Malaya. The
following table shows the importance of unassisted
197
ilflmirraticn in relation to a.ssirtod ìnmigratiori
:iri Mnlaya during the post-rlepressiou years:
Thb]eXII: 107
.
pporton of Unassisted Imirator
toAssiste Imniation in
a1aa,
9Lf_Lfo.
Year
Assisted Immiçrants Uxaasited Imii- Percentage of
into MaJ.Rya
.rants into
unassisted to
Malaya
assisted
immiprants
-
1934
45,469
1935
20,771
1936
3,75k
1937
5849
50,128
48
1938
4,580
17,307
79
1939
287
2,166
88
1940
48i
833
63
27,306
38
1
25,625
i
2k,1Oi.
The ban imposed by the Government of India
on assisted exniration oT unskilled labourer8 from
1th. June 1938 also prohibited unassisted emigration
of unskIlled labourers. Coneequently the number of
unassisted 1aboxrers imuigrating to !aIaya dropped
front 1938 onwards. For example, in 1937 there
t'ere 50,128 unassisted immìgzants but in 1940
there were only 833.
Una3sjsted immigration included commercial
immigration or 'ti'ader migration" as it
s
eneral1y
called. Money-lenders1 profession]. men arad
merchants followed in the wake of the labourers
trying to cater to their wants in order to prosper
from the business thus established. These inunigrants
were usually of higher caste and came on their own.
They included Chettiars and Sikh financiers from
Madras, Marwaris from
northwest and
ajputana, Pathans from the
anyias from the United Proinces.
In general, they played Tthe role of a petite
bourgeoisie in the Indian community.I!
Thus by reference to the srstems of
recruitment
the pattern of Indian immigration to
Malaya can be brought home most forcibly. The
ireporiderant influence was that of the kangany
6ystem which held the field from the 1890's to
1938e aIthouh by the 1930's it had started to
decline. The vazious method6 of recruitment made
osib1e an abundant sup1y of Indian labour for
the expanding rubber estates and other industries.
0f øourse credit must be given to the work of the
Indian Immigration Committee, which can be regarded
.
.
as uthe backbone of the rubber industry in Ma].aya."
108
Footnotes
]_
G».:. Turner, Indian Immigration Fund, Hinitry
of Labour, Federation o
2
195sf.
L4H. C1aytoi, Report on Indian Immigration ana
niration fo
3
Malaya,
the year
Perang 19O7
p.3.
ibid. p.8.
Lf
Mills, British ThiJ.e in Eastern Asi, cford,
19k3, p.219
(Bereafter cited as
Mills1
British Rule)
5 J. Norman Prmer, Colonia3 Labour Policy and
Administration: A History o
Plantation Inaust
in Mala?7R, l91O-l9
Incorporated Pujh
cited a
6
Labour in theRubber
New
J.J. Augusti
oxk, p.38. Oereatter
Partner, Colonial Lakçur Policy.)
.
.
G.E. Turner, 'Thdian Immiratio
Committee,"
Malayan Historical Journal, V. I (195k) p.83.
7 Minutes of ameeting o
the lmmiEration Committee,
23rd. March l97, Government Office, Penaud.
B I.R. Price, Anival Repozt of the South Indian
Fund Board 1959, GoTernment Pzess, Federation
of Mala7a 1960. p.9. (flereafter cited as Price, ARSILFB
201
ii'dpra
Council Proceedirgs, 1911, Pederated
M1y Lttes, Government rreso, 1912, p.B17-19.
lo
.
]Qrnier, COloEial Labour Policy, pfl.
]1
fletto, Indians
ii Ma]aya: hictorica1 tacts
and flgures, Siugpore, G. Netto, 1961.
12
1.3
1
Parmer
Colonial Labour Policy, p.2.
M1118, British
u1e p.220.
According to Dr. Farmer1 the Indian Immigration
Committee wcs comooed of eiGht members, three
government officers and fìe European planters, who
were all appointed by the çovernor acting as the
High Comniiasioner of the Federated Malay Stte6
The three government officers were the Superintendent
of Indian Iinigration1 the General Manager of the
Government-owued Railway arid the Governient surgeon
of Perak.
15
Rport of the Agent of the Government of
Malaya for the year 1952, Government
of India Pxea, Delhi, 1933.
:16
Farmer, Colonial Labour Po1ic, p.45.
202
17
G:L].rnan, Labour in Br]tiith Malaya, Nalayan
]eris NoXI, 192L ioncon, p.1k.
i8
1.9
Parinr1
Laboir Po1icy
proceedings of the Lea1atie Couui1, Straits
Sett1ementB
20
o
p.kO.
1909 arLc
p,B5k-B55.
again in 198 the Planterst Association
Malaya tried to secure the right o
selecting
mrnbei-s to the Committee, and in 1928 the Committee
declared the rates for labourers' wages which most
employers considered too high. In both these attemts1
the P.II.M. was unsuccessful. It di
ziot try to pursue
this po1iy again.
2].
J.H. Clayton,
E21igration fo
22
23
port on Indian Immigration and
the year 1901, Penang 1908, p.
Farmer, Colonial Labour Policy,
.k2.
Marjoribanka & A.KG. Narakkayar, Repprt on
Indian Lab2? Engratiaig to Ceylon and Malaya1
Madras c3overnment PI'e85, 1917, p.80, Appendix X.
2k
25
Ibid. p29.
L].dworth, RBPPt0fl the Work of the Labour
203
jprtmr'nt for the year 1912, ?ec1erted Malay
Ctn tes,
2 6
e ,
27
A1ßILFB p ,
10.
Novber 1913, this Forne wa
Luripur it CircuJ.Qr 1oad
nn
opened in Kuala
was put undex the
m2Fervision of a Medioal Cuperintendent, and was
vi;itcd perodicall7 by members of the
otrd of
Visitors appointed for the purpose. Refer to
forj rules for the maintenance of the
1ome for Decrepit Indians, which was also known
aß the Choultxy.
28
.
LS. Sandhu, uSome Prelim.nary Observations of
the Origins and Characteristics of Indian Migration
to Malaya, 1786-1957" Papers on Nalayan History,
Papers submitted to the First Tnternational Conference
of South-East A8ian Historians, Singapore 1962, p.30.
29
Planters' Association of Ma1aya
Chairman's
ort, 1913-191k, p.7.
30 LN. Jackson, Thimigrant abour and the Development
of Malaya, 178G-1920, Kuala Lumpur, 1960, p.119.
20k
31
L.. Ho;e
The ludian 1m'uiratou ?urtd ind Its
Work:ing 'n ..onnction 'th 1ecruiting Labourers
f Kniicsinthe Madras Preicency;
by Means
a parnpl1et preprired by thc Acting Controller o
I,bour In 1910, arl(9 enclosed 1n Despatch No07
from Federated Mrday
St'ites to
eoretary of State,
Angust i;', 1919.
2
T .k.
Malaya1
fice1
An Outline Litory of Indians in
this is an expancion of brief notes oompiled
Thr a lecture at the Governnent Officers' Training
School, Taiping in 1953, p.k.
33 G.E. TuDner, op. cit. See also Annual 2eport of
the South Indian Labour Fund
According to this
reporte
oard, 1959e p.11
assessment on Indian
1a1our continued to be collected up to the end of
19k]. and the Fund was used to repatriate Indians
on grounds of retireient or ill-health.
31f
The old Indien Immigration Fund which was
up in accordance with "The Taniil Immigration
Ordinance1
1907", wa woundu
et
\tnd
on 31st. August, 3.958.
205
The assets of the :'und weDe trgnsferred to the
south Indian Labour Fund board in accordance with
"The Indian Thimigration 'unc1sCVindin.-up) Ordinance
No.25 of
19581? Ieated controversy ws generated
u:pon discussion of the disposi1 of the Eund. Some,
like C. Kondapi, argued that the 1nd was a part
of the workers' wages, which we collected from
the emp1oyer. Therefore, in their opinion, the
Fund should be usei to benefit the workers, for
it was due to the assesement collected from
employers that the labourer& wages were kept
low. In the words of Kondapi
The family of every
Indian labourer who has worked or is now working
in Malaya has a legal claim to this
nd and is
its joint owner." But employers were in strong
protest: they felt that the money belonged to
them. The amount as of August 31st. i958 was
6
, 159 ,
k97 . la which inc1uded immovable propertç
in India, investments aiLd cash in bank
3
Parnier, Colonial Labour Policy, p.58.
206
36
Ei33,
F.M.S
port Thr the Iesideut-Qenera1,
Ironi the Protector ci Indiax
Labour1
F.N.S.
for the year 12?:i Se1anor Government Press,
p.], rara, 5.
3?
Indian Immigration Conimittee, Minutes, Book 3,
November 10, 1919.
3a
Papers on Tamil Thiinigration Presented
t 12th.
nnua1 ieetimg of Planters' Association of Malaya,
April 30, 1919, Section 2 p.23.
39 The Malaya fribune, 26th. August 1926.
ko
Mukarrams, Repçrt of the Honorary Conunissioiier
for Depressed Classes, S.S. & F.M.8. on the Thaf1ic
between the South Indian Ports and Ma1a, 1926,
Karthikeyan k'ress, Chidambarani.
ki
Mills, British Rule p.221.
k2
43
p.221.
E.Z. Hose, Report on the Worldng of the Labour
Department for theyear 191, Kuala Lumpuz 191k.
kk
Gi1an, Reppzt on the Working of the
Labour Deprthent for the Year ]917, Kuala Lumpur,
1918.
207
245
R.N. Jackson, op. cit. p.io.
kG
I.F. Gilman, Labour in British Malaya, Malayan
Series No.XI, British 1nDire
xhibition, 192km
Ijondon, p.k.
Af7
it became necessary to re6ort to the indenture
system when slavery was abolished within the British
pire in 1833.
k8
Nanjundan, Indians in Malayan Eccnomy, New
De1hi
£1.9
Government of India Press, 1951, p.21.
c. Kondapi, Indians Overseas, 1838-19k9, Thaian
Council of World Affairs, London, 1951,
50
i.8.
Sandhu, "Sorne Preliminary Observations oÍ
the Origins an
Characteristics of Indian Migration
to Malaya, 1786-1957" Papers on Malayan Histor3r,
K.G.
regonning (ed.) Singapore 1962, p..
51 E.V. Carey, 'T1ecruiting Tamil Labour," The Se1angor
Journal Vol. XII, 1895, p.k].3.
52
M1118
British Rule p.219.
53 L Gaiigulee, Indians in tile Epire Overseas,
The New India Publishing House Ltd.1 19k? p.+3.
208
rLf
.)
55
:b.v. Carey, op. cit. p.411.
secretary of State's Circu1r to Government of
the Straits Sett1meuts, dated 26.10.1877 Erc1osLzre:
letter dated 21,.6.75 from Captain B. Y'ischer,
British Consular Agent, Karikal to Secretary of
:Fort st. George.
56
Legisùtive Council Proceedings, Straits Settlements,
1898, neetìn
57
on 23..l898.
N. Gangulee, op. cit. p.kk.
58
Dennery, Asia's Teeming Millions: and Its
b1ems for the West, 1931, London, p.187-188.
59
Refer to Appendix B for a siecimen of a 0otract
oÍ' Immigrant for
60
ixed Terni of 600 Days.
Davis, The Population of India and Pakistan,
PrLnceton University Press, New Jersey 1951, p.103.
61
Beport of the first Meeting of the General Labour
Committee, British
Malaya1
held at 12 Market Street,
Lumpur on May 31st. 1, The Malayan Leader
Press, E:uala Liampur, p.8.
62
»
DeT, Our Countrymen &broad, A11ahabad
JB. Kripalani, All Indian Congress Committee,
l9fO, p.1k.
Dennery, op. cit. pi88.
6k
Beaumont, The New S1avy, London l8?O,
qioted by P. Ruhomon, Centenary History of the
__t Indiana in British Guiana 1838-1938, Georgetown
1939, p.k7.
65
Dr. Lanka Sundaram, "Internatioial A5pects ot
Indian Ebiigration,T? Asiatic Review 1931, April,
p.288.
66
Moreland & Atul C. Chatterjee
A Short
History of India1 London 1958, p.4k3.
67
Waiz, Indians Abroad, Sombay 1927, p.56k1
quoting.
68
69
bc. cit.
Report of the Committee on Bnigration froi
:xidïa to the Crown Coloniec and Rrotectorates7
Sessional Papers, Cmd. p192, London:
Stationery Office 1910, p.22.
70
p.27-.8, p.167 ff.
is Najestyss
210
71
C. Kondapi
72
op. c.t. v.29.
Dennery, Asia's Teemini11ions: and Its
Problems for the TVest, London 1931, p.219.
73
Urtder this system, whenever a Superintendent
of an estate in Ce1on found that rore labourers
existed on the estate than was required, he issued
a ttrndu, i.e. a written undertaking to discharge
so many labourers on being paid the amount of debt
owed by these labourers. The kangany then woiJ.d
try to seek emplopment Lor these labourers with
the help o1 the tundu on another estate short of
labour. The Superintendent of the new estate would
pay new advances to the kangany who would then pay
off the old Superintendent. Then the accounts cf
the former estate were closed the kangany and his
labourers could move off to the new estates Thus
the tundu system was only a form of transereuce
of debt. See C. Kondapi's Indiana 0ve'seas l838_l9Lf9
».33 for a full account of this system.
7
.
ic:.
.
J
OPi. c:Lt. p.1OM-.
211
?5
erer to 4pendixC Lor the blank forms for
Kangany' s Licences
76
K.A.
Mukunan1
Annual Report of the Aient of
the Government of Iri3ia in British Ma1
for tho
Year 195, Go,ernmeit of India Prese, New Delhi
1936, :p.3.
77 ESW.F. Gi1mai, iabour in British !a1aya, Malayan.
Series No.XI, Eritieh
npire Ichibition 1924,
London, p»9.
78
N.K. Menon, "Indian Immigration in Ma1ay&,
Interpreters' Annual 1948-1m, ì38'
79 This was 'e1ated to the writer by an eye-witness
working on a rubber estate.
8o
The writex' is also inaebted to the saine eye-witnesB
for the interesting injunction given by the kangany
to his recruits.
Si
82
The Malay Mail, January 30th., 1913, p.9.
Report of the FirstMeeting of the General Labour
Committee1
british Ma1a,lie1d at 12 Market Street,
c:ua1a Lumpur on May 31st. 1920, The Malayan Leader
212
Press, Kualo lumpur, p.8.
83
,
Marjoribanks and A.I.G Abmad Tambi
Marakkayr,
pprt on Indian Labour Jigratigto
!2On and Malaya, Madras Government Press, 1917,
p.?8. (Heretfter cited as Marjoribanks and.
Marak1yar,
Vf
port on Indian Labour.)
.
p.33.
85
86
T11, British flule, j.220.
Nanjundan, Indians in Ma1ayn Economy, New
Delhi, Oovernnent of india Press, 1951, p.21'.
87
88
89
The Malay Mail, January 30th. 1913.
P1anter
Vol.XVI, 7(July 1935) p.312.
Marjoribanks and Marrakkayar,
çpprt on Indian
p.32.
90
91
MalayMail, January 30th. 1913, p.9.
.
Majoxibanks and Marrakkayar,
prt on In&ian
p.32.
92
St&tement made by 14z. Gilman of the Malaya
Deputation to the Standing Committee on Eiiiation
213
cf the Governnient of India at SimIa on 31st.
Auust 1922, Annex in Report on the "orking of
;!
9)
_Labour Departnient for the Year 1922, p1S.
Interpreted frani the words of a certain Palani
Kanan
of Cepang istate, Selangor when the writer
went to interview him.
9Lf
nterview at
e1ated to the writer äurD.ng the
Sepang Ftate, SeJ.angor.
95 K. Davis, Thepo1ation of India and Pakistan,
Princeton University ftes, New Jersey 1951, p.1O.
96
.
.
K.S. Sandhu, USOme Pre1imriary Observations of
the Origins and Characteristics o
to Malaya, 17861957h1,
Indian Nigration
Malayan History,
K. G. Tregonning (ed.) Siiigapore 1962, p.56.
9? y. Thompson, Labour Problems 1x1 Southeast Asia,
Yale University Press, New Haven, 1947 p.63.
98
Annual Report of the Labour Department of Ma]
for the Year1938 p.13, para. 28.
99 y. Thompson, op. cit., ]-9k7, p.67.
100 y. Thompson, Postmortem on la1aya1 New York,
214
J9Lf3, p.l22-23
ÎC)1
v.s. Srinivasa Sastri, Repçt on the Conditions
of Indian Labour in Malaya, 1937, New Delhi, p.20
pEtra. 29.
102
N.S. Ginsburg and F.R. Chester,
Seattle
195e, p.322.
103
o:
nnua1 Report of the Agent of the Government
10f
Nanjundan, Indians in Nalajyau Economy, New
Delhi1
105
'-7
India
Government of India Press, l95l
p.23.
nr
Parne', Co1ona1 Iabon' Fo1y p.00,
306
.
'
iaskar, tsia on the Move, New York 19k6
p 60.
107
108
, Nanjundan, op. cit. p.25.
JeadeTa
Ttlndian Inunigration into Malaya"
Unpublished B.A,(Hons.) Thesis, Unieri.ty of
Singapore, 1959, p.20.
215
CHAPTER IV
I!L4MIGRATION and INDIAN PROPUL&TION GRO7TE.
The growth of the Indian poptilation up
to 1930 was mainly if1uenced by the magnitude
oÍ Indian immigration into the country.
It was
only after the Seconì World War that the growth
of the Indian
ou1ation in Ta1ay-a was no longer
going of labourers
dominated by the cominr
from South India; it became stabilized politically
as well as socially. Many Indians then began to
regard Malaya as their home) That immigration
was mainly responsible
or the Indian population
growth before the 1930's was determined by a
complex set of factors. It took quite a long tinie
for the Indian population to become settled, for
like the IThinese, the Indians migrated to Malaya
with the primary idea to "shake the golden pagoda
tree, gather up the fruit an
depart to their own
homelands."2 In a word, they came to the Malyan
Eldorado only to amass a large fortune and not to
216
.;ett1e down. Thus very few Indiais sett1e1 in
Palaya during the early yers.3 Again the transient
character of Indian 1aour, tith the constant
TTtug_ofwatT
o1 Indiau
between India
xid Malaya
necessitated that the Indian population in the
country could only increase by imniiration. The
peculiar cozriposition of the Indian
opi1a tien,
with a huge deficit of women precluded any excess
cf births over deaths. But even with the deficit
of women, there was little inteziiiarrisge between
the indigenous Malays and the Indians, notwithtandin
the Moslem Indians who professed the same religion.
As Roland Braddel] has suggested:
The different kinds of Malays are
Mobammedans, and intermingle to a good
extent anzong themselves but not much
with Mohamnedan Indians.5
Moreover the
'act that the Indians had no attachment
to the land where they lived did not encourage a
settled Indian population.6 Other factors auch as
diseases, malnutrition and unhealthy living conditions
on estates weze also important, for they took a heavy
217
loll oZ the Indians. In the early days of the
p1nntaton
industry1
the death..-rate was very high,
as high as 75 per cent o
the arri'u-als. Even in
a93, the death-rate was 17.2 per mille in sanie
parts of Ma1aya. As T.. Silcock and Unku AbduJ.
Aìz have suggestad:
. s
ill-health rather than
ntarvation arid scarcity sets the limits
ta population growth (in Malaya)7
That migration was a dominant factor in
the growth of the Indian population in Malaya
cannot be contested. The size and compoeltion of
the Indian population was determined not by births
and deaths but by "the interplay of the geographic,
psychological and economic forces that are the
mainspr±ngs of migration.'8 As a result of the
seasonal flow of labourers to and fra across the
Bay of Bengal, "a sediment of population remained
after each tide receded,"9 and a domiciled Indian
population was thus built up. As the Superintendent
of the 1921 Population Census of Malaya has suggested:
2 i8
In British Malaya the main factors
which goverrs the increase in the
o?u1ation is not, as in European
countries the excess of births over
deaths but immigration. In the Straits
Settlements, the Federated MaJ.y States
.. ........ deaths during the last decade
bave been largely in SXC6ES of births,
and were i.t not for the strean of
immigrants from China and India and the
islands cf the Ma1ar Archipe1ao, there
woi1d have been a decrease in the population
instead of an increase of over 25 per cent.1°
This aspect is also emphasized by C.A.
Vlie].and1 the Superintendent of the 1933. Population
Census of Malaya:
It is a commonplace that the growth of
the population of British Malaya is mainly
determined, not by births and deaths, but
by migration.1But this should not lead us to think that
in the country there was a "natural decrease," or
that Malaya was a tropical death tz'ap in which only
immigration from
outside saved the population front
being decimated. C.A. Viieland enjoins that it must
not be supposed that Malaya was a country in which
the birth rate was so low and the death-rate so
219
notoriously high thit its
opu1ation would soon
be extinguished were it not for the nrnnerous
immigrants who entered Ma1tya durino thi
To 3upport this, he gives th
tinie.12
evidence that in
the 1930's the birth rate for all races in the
federated Malay states was about 37
er mille,
while the death rate was only 20 per mille. He
:points out that the increase due to the excesses
of births over deaths was at the rate of 1.7
er
cent a year.
That the growth of the Indian population
in Malaya was dependent on the frecuent cross-sea
movements of Indians between the two countries cati
also be observed by the numerical disparity of Thdian
woien when compared with Lidian men. C.A. Viieland
gi'es us a hint of this:
'......... where there is an appreciable
excess of males it may be taken as ceitain
that immigration is dominant, and on the
other hand, there is an appreciable excess
of females, the cause is to be found in
emigration often seasonal of males)3
DISTRIBUTION a:4
I&ih Pout4ioh
z.
-- -St/14,.± 6ou4&Ir.J
øMu;c;rt OIdIkt Qtr
c:JL.css 1#h Pi.
J2.-Z.
.
3- '3 _,3 %
!LrI1?
4---4.j .)
_,s- 's-.
=
'r.
)a:p L
220
Again that migration profoundly influenced the
growth of the Indian population can be attested
by the fact that in 'New Ma1aya1
the Indian
population fluctuated wildly, rising and falling
aocording to the econoniic atmosphere of the country
juct like the
opi.lations of the KLondike and
other Eldorados. However the position was different
in Old
Malayas
where there was a large settled
population. In fact, the Indian population wai
negligible in the Unfederated MalaI States of
Perils, JCelantan and Trengganu fox the conditions
there were not favourable to immigrants. Economically
they were backward and there was little political
security to attract the Indians.'5 But their proportion
was considerable in Kedab and Johore, where European
and foreiSn capital and enterpxi8es had developed
.
the rubber industry there.
16
The 1lndians were mainly found alone the
western coastal belt of the Malayan Peninsula, as
showxi by Map I.
The distribution of Indians in
221
iaya in fact wa
conditioned by the expansion
nf the plantation industry1 transport 1ins and
ti-ade as well as
y thsica1 georathy and historica1
factors. The colonial economic policy concentrated
the rubber estates mainly on the western coaetal
lelt of the Peninsula.
The densely forested
central belt of mountain ranges bad prevented
penetz'ati.on, and thus economic development was
mainly con±'ined to the western coasts where the
marshes, once drained, became suitable areae for
plantations. Even today, about 98.8 per cent of the
total Indian population is still in Weetern Malaya,
stretching from Malacca in the south to Southern
Cedab in the north. In 1911, the percentage was as
high as 99.9, but in 192]. it Lei]- to 99.6 per cent,
i_fl 1931 to 99,14. per cent and in 17 to 98.6 per
cexlt.J.9 The Indiane were densest in Perak arid
Selangor, wbere they congregated on the estates.
These two states accounted for more than half of
the Indiane found in. the Federated Malay States.
222
Indians were
1so numerous on
inapoze Island,
but of course the Indian element in relation to
the total population was more conspicuous in
Penng than Singapore, because when the Indian
irnnhigrints arrived in Malaya, most of them were
landed at the port of Penan.2° The concentration
of Indians in Singapore was due to the great
number of Indians enaed in commerce and trade,
while many were employei3 by the Public Works
Department, the Municipa1it
and other estab1ishnents.
On Zingapore Island, the Iwlians tended to concentrate
immediately south of the Central City area. Four
zones where the Indians are nunerous
noteth the western fringe o
today can be
the business zone near
Chulla Street; the diztrict just north of the Singapore
River, in High Street; the area north of Arab Street,
off Beach Road and lastly the settlement along
Serangoon Road.21 The ratio of Indiana in the
Nalayan Peninsula to that in Singapore was:
Fox every ten Indians in the territories
223
CCflpriSiflg the Ma]yan Federation tIie
WQS one in Singapore Island in 193L
Therefore immiration
nfluencea the
Indian population growth in Malaya. IToreover
immration produced in the country a population
of unique characteristics, with different sets o
cultures A "racial mosaic" was created and in 1936
an. observer declared that few countries in the
world possessed a niore diversified library of
hunian nature123 with different sets of creeds and
customs. The population became cosniopolitan, and
on account of immigration, Indians, Chinese, Japanese,
Siarese, Indonesians, Arabs, Persiana and Europeans
are present even todar in the country.2
nue to
the immigration of mainly South Indians into Ma1aa,
the South Indians formed the predominate element
of the total Indian population. In 1921 it amounted
to 9k.k per ient of the total Indian population.25
But other factors tended to reduce this proportion.
First1r, there was immigration of more North Indians
22k
after the j93Q. Secondly, the ban
uposed by
thc Indian Governnieit on asicted unsl:illed labour
emigration adversely affected the proportion of
South Indians, faz' th
Litter foxmed the majority
o1' labour iPrnie;rauts into Malaya. Many Taniils
perished durin; the Japanese Occupation from early
19k2 to 19k5. Thus in 19k7, the number of South
Indians in the tota]. Indian population declined
to 92.1 per cent. This decline of South Indians
was reflected in the decline in numbers of the
Tamil group. In fact the decline in the South
Indian element of the total Indian population was
largely the result of the decrease in the Tamul
proportion. .Et was estimated that out of eirery
ten Indians in Malaya, nine were South Indians and
.
out of ten South Ind,ans, seven were labourers.
26
It is poseible to form some idea of
the effect of immigration and emigration on the
growth of the Indian population. The best way to
judge the effect of immigration on the growth of
PERCE1JTAGE
CoMPûITroN
OF POPULATION OF MALAÏt
MALAYAS/ANS
Ifflhiuli INS/ANS
DTHEP3
/0.4
l2I
_191/
.
.
/931
I'47
Figure IL.
Source: S. Nazijundan, Indians in Malayan Econor,
New Delhi, Government oî India Press, 1951.
225
the population within a. period is to compare the
'migrational surplu&, i.e. the excess of immigrants
into the ecuntry over emigrants from the
countrys
with the 'actual increase' in the population, the
balance being accounted for by the "natural iiicrease,
i.e. the difference between births and deaths.27
In reviewing the growth of the Indian population
in Malaya, reference should always be made to
Table xiii2S
page 226 and Figure II for the
percentage composition of the Indian Population or
Ma1ara.
In the nineteenth Centiir, Indians could
be found in the Straits Settlements. As early as
1812 there were 7,113 Indians out of a total
population of 26,107 in Periang. In Malacca
by 1827
there were 2,3.2 Inai.ans cnit ol a total population
of 33l62. In Singapore by 1821 there wexe 132
Indians out of a total population of f,727. By 1871,
the date of the first Population Census of the
Strait5 Settlements, the Indian population had
226
Table X1.11
Growth of the Indian Population in Malaya
1901-191f0
State or
Settlenient
1931
1940
32,x1-56
5lO19
6O2Q7
J6,65
53,339
8,02O
1276
75O0
33
2338
28.Ik]4
57,150
82O55
1O4628 ,132,271
1497Z9
73,539
130,324 .159452
196L9
714,067
l3255
155,92k
526 18248
33.658
5OlOO
59472
66ii
8692
14.820
17321
191]
Singapore
17,825
2?I990
Penang
380.5i
Malacca
Straits
Settlements
Perak
SelangoD
-
.
19Q3
).6ßk7
92l
3211
NegTi
Seflibilan
l253
federated
Malay States 58,386 172k65 3O5219 379996 468.pa9
2A1ore
5659
-
2k280 j
51038
5B.6Z2
____f
1!Ì t -
iinei
British
Malaya
-
4k
.
267,203
471,666
624,009
748,82
227
increased to 35,389. Ten years later, the Indian
popii3ítion increased to 41231.29 In 1901, the
Indians in the F.LS. and the Straits 6ettlernents
numbeDed 115,536e
745O in the latter and 58,36
in the former. The growth of Ihe Indian populaticn
was as spectacular as the modern development of
Malaya. In 1891 the Indian population enumerated
in the F.M.S. had been 2045k1 and thus the increase
a decade later amounted to 38,232 or 190.5 per
cent.'° This was primarily due to increaeed
immigtation as a result of prosperity in the country,
where there was rapid development and expansion.
There was also the need of the Government for labour
in building railways and in other public works. The
Taniils and other Indians could be found mainly in
the districts of Krian, Kinta,
ua1a Lunipur and
Seremban. The Indians had increased especially in
Negri Sembilan, showing an increase of k,k09 or
39k.7 per cent. This was followed by Selangor,
with an increase of l3,25 or 369.2 per cent. Then
228
emne Perak, where the Indians showed an increase
of 19,898 or 133.9 per cent, as shown in Table XIV:
Table XIV'1: Tamils and Other Natives of India in
theFederated Ma1y States in 1891
J9O1.
State
1891
1901
¶Pota3. Increase Increase per cent
lk,862 3k,760
19,898
133.9
Se1nngor
3,592 16,847
13,255
369.2
Negri Sembilan
1,117
5,526
k,fO9
39Lf7
583
1,23
670
115.0
2O15458,386
38,232
190.5
l'erak
Faharig
Total
The Tamils increased tremendously in the
Federatea Ma1a
States, from 171k6k izi 1891 to
521f77 in 1901, being a total increase o
35,013,
as shown in Table XV:
Table
32
Increase inthe Tamil Population of
the Federated Malay States, 1891-1901.
State
1891
1901
1ncease
Perak
13,063
30,976
17,913
3,082
15,476
12139k
Neri Zenbi1an
963
51O7
Pahag
356
918
562
17,k64
52,k77
35O13
Selangoz'
Total
The in3ustria1 'l1amils could be found in large
towns as Taiing, Ipoli, Kual.
Iunipur, Seremban
and ICuala Lipis, while the agricultural Thmils were
nunlerous in centres like Began Serai, Pant Buntar,
Teluk Anson, XJ,anç, Kaan
Port Dickson and
Kuala Pilah.
That immiretion had undoubtedly influenced
the growth of the Indian population in Malaya can
be seen during the period 1900-J.911. The Indian
population in
alaya in 1911 was enumerated at
267,203. The 'migrational sur1us' from 1900-1910
wa
22,077, with k79,626 ìmigrants entering ana.
26,5f9 leaving the country. In the words of
s. Nanjundan:
The growth of the Indian population in
Malaya during the decade 1901-1911
aue to
WRS RJJflOSt entLrel
a s
couty.3
immigration into the
The population of the FJ.S. increased
from 678,95 in 1901 to 1,036,999 in 1911. ThU$
there was au increa8e of 38,Ok persons. 0f this
230
increase, the ChLnee ind Indians accounted for
2k',8G0 or 68 par Cent,
he Chinese bd increased
by one-half withiii this decade, but the Indian
popu]ition had trebled itself durin
per1od
the saine
The Indians totalled 172,k65 in 1911,
reisterin
an increase of 195.k
er cent over
that of 1901. The period from 1901 to 1911 saw
the rand expansion o1 rubber p1antaionß, and
therefore the ii,creased labour brought in to inset
the demand of the numerous new estates helped to
swell the Indian population. The rapid exjansion
of rubber plantatìons was felt particularly in
the three Vestern states: Perak, $e1anoiNegri Seinbilan. But Pahan
nd
was also affected, and
the increase of the Indian popi.1ation was most
niarked in this state, where the Indians in 1901
numbered a little over a thouand4 A decade later,
it increased to 6,6ii.' The increase of Indians
was also remarkable in Negri Seinbilan and Perak,
where the Indian population was about five times
23].
as numerous as it was in 1891. In Negri 5ebi1an,
the rate o
increase was that the Indian population
was seventeen times as great as it was twenty
years ago. In Selangor, the Indian populttion
multiplied itself by twenty
Table XVI35: Indians in the Federated Ma1y States,
1901-1911.
State
1901
1911
Increase
Increase per cent
Perak
3k,760
73,539
38,779
111.5
Selangor
16,8k?
7k,067
57,220
339.6
Negri Sembilan
3526 18,2kB
12,722
230.2
Pahang
1,253
6,611
5,358
k27.6
Federated
Malay States
.
58,3$6I172,65
1].k,079
195.
That the 'migrational surp1us' was chiefly
responsible for the growth of the Indian population
is obvious when reTiewing the period from 1911 to
1921. in the latter year, the Indian population in
Malaya totalled k?i666, an increase of 204,k63 over
that of 1911. The total number of Indian immigrants
232
ntertri
aIaya was 908,ioo while the number
departing from the country was 561,913. Thus the
tmigrational surplus' amounted to 3k6,187 Indiaus.
The difference of about ))fl,72k between the
'mijrationa1 surplus' and the actual increase can
be accounted for by the excess cl deathe over
births during this period. During the years of
the expansion of the rubber industry, many Indians
were decimated by malaria and other fatal diseases
which were rife. Still, the increase of 2Ok63
or 76.5
er cent over that of 191]. exceeded that
of any other communities in ?4elaya. This can be
explained by the demand for Indian labour on the
rubber estates, and the Indian estate population
amounted to 3k per cent of the total Indian
popu1aton or 2
,3 5.
In the Straits Settlements, the increase
from 191]. to 1921 was 27,5 per cent or 22,573 as
compared with an increase of 2,9O5 in the decade
between 1901 and 1911. The increase in Singapore
233
was 15.9 per cent or
,k66; in Penang it was lk.5
per cent or 6,77Lf and in Malacca an increase of
151.1 per cent or 1L,333 can be noted. The large
increase in Malacca was due to th
substitution
of Tamil labourers for Chinese on zuany of the
estates. Chinese labourers had been prominent on
the estates in Malacca, but in the few years
preceding 1921, orgaiuzed recruiting in India led
to their replacement by Tamils.
In 121 the total Indian population
enumerated in the F.M.S. WAS more than five times
as numerous twenty years ago. The increase since
1901 was 76.9 per cent. In 1921 the Indian population
was 305,219. The Indian population of Peraic in 1911
was almost the same as that of Selangor
73,539:
74,067. The increases recorded in 1921 for the two
states were similar
56,785 or 772 per cent
in Ferait and 58,k78 or 78.9 per cent in Selangor.
The increase in Negri Sembilan amounted to Sk.k
per cent or 15,410. The increase in Pahang was the
23k
lowest of the four states, amounting to 31.k per
cent or 2,081. This low rate of increase was due
to the decrease o
the Indian population in the
Temerloli Ditr1ct by 35.8 per cent. Out of the
2k districts in the Federated Malay States, it
was in four districts that the increase wa
over
150 per cent, while for seven districts the
increase was 100 per cent over. The chief planting
districts o
Krian, Lower Perak, Kuala Lumpur,
Klang, Kuala Selangor and Seremban contained 5k
per cent or l65355 of the total tndian population
of the Federated Malay States.
In the Unfederated Malay State6, the
total Indian population enumerated in 1911 was
]2,683. A decade later, it increased to 61,l9
of whom Kedah and Johore accounted for 57,18k.37
As has been pointed out before, the large proportion
of Indians in these two statee was due to the
development and expansion of the planting industry,
and its consequent demand 2or Indian labour. In
235
Johore, the Indian population increased b
18,521
or 327.2 per cent. Out of 2k,180 Indians in the
state, 15,7Lfl ox. 65 peZ' cent were enwneated on
estates, The highest rate of increase was in the
Endau district with 2,205.5 per cent. The lowest
rate of increase was in Segamat, with 209.6 per
cent. The hihet net increase was in Johore Bharu
district with 7,1k3, followed by the increase of
1f,682 in 1ar. In the three districts of Johore
Jharu, Miiar and Segamat the Xndian population
exceeded 5,000. The increase of the Indian population
in Keah was even more striking than in Johore.
The increase amounted to 2,93O for the whole state
or 443.3 per cent, the total Indian population being
33,004. Of this, 67 per cent or 22,207 were enumerated
on estates. The greatest net increase8 were 1O,UO
in Kuala Muda and 7Lf55 in Kulim. These two were
the only districts in Kedah where the Indian
population exceeded 5,000. The highest rate of
increaSe was in Baling with 1,824.1 per cent, followed
236
by those oI Kuala Muda afld Banax' Bharu where the
increases were over 500 per cent eacii. In Penis,
the fn&an populati.on increased from 114 to 8iì,
with an increase of 611.f per cent. In Ie1antan,
there was an
irrease of 2,Skk or 389.0 per cent.
The Indians in this state were found
ain1y on
estates in tfl.0 Ke1anta. In Trengganu, the Indian
pou1ation was insigniîicant.8
That the growth of the Indian population
in
a1aya was due to the ezcess of immigration over
emignation can also be observed in the decade 19211931. During this decade, the total nwnbei- of Indian
immigrants amounted to 887,751 whereas the Indians
leaving Ta1aya numbered 703,809. Thus the 'migrational
surplus' was 183,9k2.39 The actual increase in the
Indian population in 1931 over that of 1921 was
:L52,3k3, for the total number of Indians in Malaya
wa
62k,009.
of the tota]. number o1 624,009, the tndian
population in the Straits Settlements accounted for
237
132,277, while the Federated Malay States returned
379,996, and the other states 1J..1,736.
ludian
population comprised 1f.2 por cent of' the total
population of k,385,3k6 ju Malaya in 1931. 3n the
Straits Settlements, Indians accounted for 11.9
per cent oÍ the populattou, in the Federated Malay
States it amounted to 22.2 per cent and in the
Unfederated Malay States, 7.1 per cent.
Indians
came second in the percentage composition of the
opu1ation in Singapom and Se1ancr, where the
Indiane constituted 29.2
er cent o
the total
population. In Pahang and Johore they came fourth,
and ii every other settlement or state, they came
third. The Indian position in Pahang and Johore
was due to the 1are Tother Malaysian" element in
these two states as well as to the small number
of estates present. Perak and Selangor returned
one half o
the total Indian population o
Malaya.
Singapore, Penang, Negri Sembilan, Johore and
Kedah all retu.rned Indian population over fifty
23S
thosand. Io listrict returned an Indian popu1ttion
of over
D,OOO. However, the Sizgapore Municia1ity
returned 41,356; Kinta 41,462; Lower Perak 35,9k-;
ICuala Lumpiir k365; Elang
G,217 and Sererthan
36 828.
alaya,
Of the total Indian population in
nearly L.9 per cent or 30k,15? were enumerated on
estates. The urban Indian population formed 3O5
er cent of the total Indian population. The Indian
rural population (excludTh
estate population)
formed the reuaining 20 per cent. In a word, the
urban and rural Indian population constituted about
.
.
51 per cent ot the total Ind.an popiilat.on
k2
In
the Federated !4ala7 Statee as a whole, 21.5 per cent
of the urban population were Indians1 63 per cent
were Chinese and 12 per cent Nalaysian.k3
It is true that
igrational aurplii&
accounted for rnot of the Indian population growth
in Malaya, but in the period
rozn 1931-19k?, the
roth of the Indian population wae detemined by
239
Ft. complex set of 1actor, The IndiaE popu1atiox
was influenced by the Great Depression of the
1930's, for the magnitude of Indian inrniigz'ation
was greatly rethced. To borrow You Poh Seng's
words:
The principal cause of popu1tion
Increase up to 1930 was immigration
froirt
India. This tide was
halted and to some extent reversed
with the econom
depression of the
early thirties.'
The ban imposed by the Covernnent of India on
emigration of unskilled labour in 1938, and the
tendency of tb
Indians to sett.e in Malaya since
1930 were also responsible. There was improvement
of the sex ratio axnong the Indians and this
accounted for a higher rate of natural increase
Moreover, a
more and more Indians were locally
born, the Indians tended to regard Malaya as their
home, and therefore were inclined to settle in
the new country. Whereas in 1921, about 12.k per
cent of the Indians were locally born, in 1931,
the percentage increased to about 23. per cent
2kO
Besides, marry Indians in fece of a
danger of a
iinmineit
Japanese invaSion anô of rood shortage
migrated home in the opening of 19k1. But figures
are not available as to the number of Indians who
nianged to get away before the southward drive of
¿.5
the Japaneee troops.
Many Indians e.ther died
from exposure or were murdered on the way.k6
What influenced the growth of the Indian
population in Malaya adversely was the Japanese
occupation of the country. P.E. Smith sums it up
sucøinctly:
The Japanese Occupation o Malaya had a
more disrupting influence on the life
of the Indian community than that of any
other of the three major commuxities.
A1] suffered frani shortage of food in
the last two years of the occupation.
But, although the Chinese suffered more
than the Indians and Malays from deliberate
brutality and homicide, they did not
experience the enforced family separation
or disruption of the normal means of
earning a living to qaite the same extent
that the Indians did.7
The war brought a series of shocks to the
?tcloisteredlt world of Malala. The Japanese Occupation
241
resulted in inunense hardships for the Indians as
well as for the other commtinities. The Indians
were ifl13OVeriShed. and. conseuent1
the Indian
popU1tion was markedly reduced.48 Very few Indiane
entered Malaya, in fact iniuigratîon stopped föllowing
the Japanese Occupation which disrupted shipping
services between India and Malaya. The production
of rubber declined and many Inaiane were deprived
of the means of livelihood. Food became acarce, and
the Japanese encouragement of food-production by
felling oonsiderable rubber trees did not help nrncb.
This was because formerly Malaya depended on food
imports from Indo-China1 Siam and Australia. But
now the war imposed iestrictions on the iLport of
food. Corxsecuent1y tone of thousands of Indians
ershed fron ma3utrition. This of course affected
the growth of the Indian population in Malaya.
Moreover, some 50,000 Indians were
forced to work on the Japanese Siam-Burma Bailway
Project. The 'Railroad of Death', as it is often
2 -2
called, was to be built across iart of Siaii and
Burma to link up the two lines already in existence
from Rangoon to Ye, in Tenasseini and from Singapore
to Bangkok.
The purpose of the railroad was
sti'ateic, so as to shorten the line of
onununication
between the Japanese arniies in India and Burma.
Work on the railway started in November 19k2 arid
it was completed on 17th. October 19Lf3. During the
first months of railroad construction, only We6tern
prisoners of war were used as labourers, perhaps
in accordarie with the Jap9nese propaganda line
"Asia for the .f&siatics." But early in 1943 the need
for additional labour became so acute that thousands
of Asians were recruited from Malaya, South Siam
and Indonesia, and these were sent up for work on
the railway lime.50 Thus manr Tamils were recruited
from the estates for they were attracted by wages
of three dollars a day, but some Indians were
forcibly sent up by the Japanese. Many of these
Indians perished while working on the railroad,
2k3
partly because of the lack of meaical care and
partly "as a resuJ.t of their ingrained mental
habit of trusting their employers to look after
their physical well being for them."51 These
Indian coolies, like the other Asians recruited,
lacked the discipline and initiative to cope with
the situation.
. . . s . . . .their living conditions were
not fit for pigs. They did not attempt
to help themselves, and they consequently
lived end died like flics in indescribable
squalor 52
Their accornmodations
rations of food and conditions
of work were deplorable! They lived in tents where
there was nothing else at all but bamboo shelves
foi- beds. They received one dollar a day as wages
out of the promised three. With these they could
oxily buy limited food supplies from native rendors
or from the expensive Japanese-controlled canteens
nearby. When dysentery, avitaminosis, malaria,
cholera and other diseases broke out, many Thtils
were carried off. Practically very few medical
2Lfk
supplies were given to these coolies. It has been
said that the Japanese fcrbaae European medical
officers from treating all those Asian coolies
who were attacked by cholera and other sickness.53
Ciolcra cases were just left in tents and doctors
were forbidden to treat them. They were given no
food and hence nany perished. In these "horror
camps" there were women and children who accompanied
sorne of the Tamils. But diseases, malnutrition,
an almost complete lack of sanitation and hygiene,
the buffets of the brutality of Japanese soldiers
and the long marches in tropical storms took a
heavy toll of these women and children. In addition
many of the Tamil coolies o
both sexes and of al).
ases were subjected to obscene brutalities, froi
which some died. In the words of Lord
ssell of
Liverpool:
.s........ not all the coolies working
on the railwaZ4died of disgase or
malnutrition .
Very few of these Indians who were sent
2 5
to wo1ç on the railroad sux'vjved to return to the
estates. Thus the Japanese Occupation had a great
influence ori the Indian population growth. To
borrow the word6 of a recent analyst:
Furthermore the birth-rate of the Indian
opu1ation fell as a result of the long
absenoe or husbands, while the mortality
rate increased from the absence of the
able-bodied bread-winners
.
However one Murugese, who sur'vived the
ordeal oÍ the "Death...ailway" described it thus:
I was about fifteen years old when the
Japanese came an took us away from
the estate. We were put in a goods-train,
which was full or water. Consequently we
could not sit, and had to stand all the
way during the journey which took three
days and three nights ............ The
conditions of the camps near the railway
were very poor. sven when it was raining
during the night, we bad to continue
work. If anyone refusedto work, his
head would be cut off.
The result of these calamities was a
drastic reduction of the Indian population as
enumerated in the 19k7 Ceneus. In 1931, the Indians
in Malaya totalled 62k,o09, and it has been estimated
that had there been normal circumstances, the Indian
26
oOpU1atjon would increase i.zp to about 800,000 by
19k? even without the aid of the 'iigrationa1
surplust. In 19+O,the Indian pou1atiou had increased
to 748,89, showing an increase of 124,82O.
In
that year1 the Indians constituted J6 per cent
of the total population of
he Federation of Malaya,
and 7.9 per cent ci the population of Singapore
Colony. In 19kO, there was an increase of 3,91
over the figure for 1939: ?f,9O8, and was due to
the excess of birt
over deaths during the years
But in 1947, the Indians in Malaya only n.wnbered
605,000 or io.k per cent of the total popuiation.8
Thue a great number of Indians perished on the
SDeath Railway.'59 But after the war, there was a
tremendous improvement of living conditions and the
Gensus of 195? enumerated 88,62o Indians, a rise
of k3.9 per cent on the 19k7 figure4
Immigrationand the Indian Sex Ratio: Immigration
and emigration were the predominant factors which
influenced the disparity of sexes among the indians
2 7
ii Malaya thiring the nineteenth and twentieth
cnturies. The Chinese iinmigraiits generally did
not bring their womenfolk along,
rticu1ar1y the
Iiailam Community who prohibited its women to
erigrate.6° Thererore the sex disproportion among
the Chinese was rather highs
ut Indians, on the
other hand, were not so markedly disinclined to
migrate to Malaya with their
amiJ.ies
In fact,
the willingness of the Indians to bring thel?
womenfolk a1oig varied corsiderab1y group by group.
The Telegus who cante originally froiit the high
country of the
astern Ghats, usually were
accompanied by their wonienThlk, and as a result
their sex-ratios were a1was the highest among
the Indian population. The males and females among
this Indian group were quite evenly balanced, axtd
thus the Telegus led a normal settled life. In
Bharp contrast, the Malayalis who came from the
western, or Malabar coast1 rarely brouZht their
womenfolk along. The sex-ratio among theiR W&8 the
248
]owest of al]. Indian ethnic 3ivjsjons. Even as
1te as l57 the
x proo'tiort anor
the Malayslis
ws 250 females per thous'ncI males, compared
'ith
that of 900 females pr thousand niales smong the
Te1eus.61 It is oast to
ee that the M1ya1i
TOU was the least settled of the Indian groups
in Malaya. Aiorg the Tarnhl group in Perak in 1901
the pz'oportion of females to males was 250:750.
In Selangor it was 198:602 in the same year, while
:in Negri Sembilan1 there were 231 Tamil women for
&V27 769 Tanil]. men.62
aeoaae later, among the
Tamils on estates, the proportion was 3 males to
on
female1 while among the Telegu estate population1
the ratio was one female for less than 2
a1es
But
among the Malayali estate population, very few
women were enwierated. This affords a powerful
testinony to the statement that among the Ma1ayai
group, the sex disparity was high. By 1931, the
sex ratio of the Tamils improved considerably for
tb.e number of females per thousand
a1ee increased
2k9
frcrt sf22.6 íxi 1923. to 51k.. In the ease of the
estate Tamils, the ratio was higher. The sex ratio
o:I: the Telegus for the sarde ye.r was 717+ Í'emaleB
per thousand males. But true to form, the sex
ratio aznou
the 4a1aya1i Was only 209.1 females
to every thousand ma1es.
The sex disparity among the Indians in
Malaya can be attribute
a
u1e
to several factors. As
very few of the Indians migrated to Malaya
with the intention of settling down in the country.
It served no purpose in bringing their families
along when after about three years, the Indians
would return to the family hearth, Besides the
cost of living was higher in Malaya than in India,
and it would be cheaper for the Indian immigrant
122 Malaya to remJ.t money ta Xia to s2pport his
family. A single man will be able to save more,
thus more often than not we find the Indian labourer
alone in Malaya, without lije family to take care
of him. The long sea voyage would impose terrible
hardship on the Indian fenaie, anc some majan
labourers were opposed tr the idea of havtng
their wQnenfo1ks work as labourers in the fielch
In th
a1riya
earlier years of In3in immîration to
the Purciali system6
in Indien soci.ety
c1iscouraed the eniigration of women. With the sex
disp'rity so high ainonc the Indians as a whole,
it was impossible to expect any great natural
increase 'n the lndin population. To cite the
words of C.A. Vlieland:
Up to late in the second decade of the
present century the number of women in
Malaya was relatively so small that
despite their fecundity and a general
death rate by no means discreditable
to an equatorial country, it was utterly
inLossible for the number of births to
exceed the number of deaths.6'
1us the sex disparity influenced the growth of
the Indian population in Malaya
6 the years passed, the sex ratio
moved towards normality. The policy of the Malayan
Government was to encourage the importation of
Indians by fzni1ie. The General Labour Cornittee
SE't U) to enquire into Indian Labour in 1920
recommended that the way to iitpro'e the sex ratio
anon
the Indians on estates wts that the difference
of wages between malee and fentales should be only
lo cents por dient.66 The usex_ratio!T rule in
Malaya was se1don applied. Lccordin
to rule 23
niade unier the Indian Thirtion Act of 1922, the
Go'ernrnen1 of India cou1c insist upon a proportion
of one female to every five males anong assisted
eznigrante to Malaya. Various steps were taken by
the Labour Departnent in Malaya to reduce sex-inequality.
Pecruitin allowances were raid to married couples
among the assisted immigrants. A bonus of $1 was
paid to each child of a non-recruited immigrant.
Schools, creclies and maternity allowances were
pDovided foz labourers on estates in the hope that
they would reduce the infantile and maternal
mortality. Planters and employers were encouraged
to assign light tasks to women, so that they might
252
have more spare time to perîorm househol3 duties,
thus encouraging Indian labourers to bring their
Wive6 along to iiaiaya.6
sven when the ban was
imposed by the GovernTient of India ou assisted
unski11e
1bour emigration, a prograrme was set
up by the Indian Immigration Comrittee to provide
assistance for South Indian wonien iinniigrants68
The sex ratio also improved as uiore and more
women. joined their husbands in the country, and
n'ore children were locally born. These Indians
of the second generation were brought up in Malaya,
and therefore tended to regazd Malaya as their
honie. The Japanese Occupation
however gruesome
it might be, also served as an impetus in reducing
sex disparity, for the majority of Indians who
perished during the period were niales. In 19k?,
the ratio of women to men was 69.2 per cent, whereas
it as i6 per cent in i93L6
Li reviewing the sex proportion among
the Indians, difference must always be made between
253
the estate Indian population an
the urban Indian
OpU1atjon. The Indians 1cated in towns were pore
unequaL :iri sexes than the Indians in rural
areas1
and there was aiway an excess of males in towns.
Thia was in sharp contrast to the Chinese, for
the proportion o
Chinese women in towns was always
higher than in rural areas, In 19111 the proportion
o:f Indian females in 10,000 Indian males in Kuala
Lumpur was 2,k32; in Ipoh 2,188; Taiping 3,526;
Kampa
2,72?; Serembazz 2,754
Klang 2,011 and
Teluk Anson 3,024. The number of Chinese females
to 10,000 Chinese males i
the sanie towns was:
Kuala Luznpur, k,ii; Ipoh 1+,122; Taiping 3,857;
Kampar 3,780; Seremban 2,3k1; Kiang 2,030 and
Teluk Anson 2,9k3. The Indians preferred to take
their womenfolk to the estates instead of the
towns chiefly because on the estates, a labourer
and his wife could find work for both of them
whereas in towns it would not be possible.'0
The sex proportion would vary amone the
ItifldjpflØuII anrI the ttimrriigranttT
roups. An
TtjfldjenousU Inthan would be born in Ma1ya,
whilo an "immigrant
Indian would b
one born
elsewhere and had mrated to the country.7
proporlton of females anon
The
the "indigenou.s1'
Indians would always be higher than amone the
"inhinigrant" Indians, a#; shown by Table XVII 72
ori page 255. In Singor, the sexes among the
"iziigenau5" Indians were eaual while
ri Pahazi
there was a slight excess of females. But among
the Indiana born e1sewbeze
there was usually a
great excess of males. The proportion of Íema1es
as highest in Selangor, Peraic1 and Kedab, and
was lowest in Singapore.
Prom the Census figures of 1911 in the
Federated Malay States, the proportion of females
to males bad increased in Perak and Selangor but
had decreased in Negri Seibi1an and Pahang. That
it was so in Pahang was due to the increase of
Northern Indiais, who wez'e unlike the Tamils in
255
Table XVII
Proportion of the sexes of Indians born in the
Malay Peninsula arid elsewhere
Tlndians born in
British Malaya
-
State oi
Set tiernent
Percentage
of Males
Indians born elsewhere
Percentage
of 'emales
-
-t
1913. l92l91l 1921
Singapore
Percentage
ot Males
1911 l93.
Percentage
of Females
l9l92l
49
50
89
90
1].
10
k'2
8
75
7k
25
26
5
51
k9
8
77
16
23
5l
Lf49
8i
80
19
20
51
k8
¿f9
78
71
22
29
51
51
+9
49
70
2
30
¿f9
51f
51
1f6
8i
75
19
25
PahanK
5?
¿f9
¿f3
51
89
8k
1].
16
Federated
Malay Statea
5J.
51
49
¿f9
78
72
22
28
5k
46
6
1k
19
kG
k
22
29
51
50
'
52
Malacca
Lf9
Straits
Settlements
5
Penang
-L
Perak
52
I
Selangor
i
,
Negri
Senibilan
-t-
oore
Kedah
k6
k
55
78
7].
_{
Kelantan
figurer 55
J
fiRure
k5
figureE 83
figre
7
256
that they did not bz'in
their womenîolk a1on
to
Ma1-a. The decrease in Negx'i Sembilan was due to
the increase of Malayali in that state. lxi the
Krian
istHct of Perak, the proportion of fema1e
to males was quite balanced. The disparity of the
sexes aiongst Indians was cost marked in the
Temerloh district of Pahang for the railway
construction work there did not facilitate the
Inlian labourers to brinC their faz2iilies a1on.
Refer to
ab1e XVIII
on page 257.
25?
P&b1e xVIII73: Number of
ema1es to 1,000 Males
Among the Indians.
Settlement or State
1911
1921
Singapore
20½
199
Penang
¿fQ7
1f37
Malacca
2k7
335
316
337
Straits
ett1ements
Pemk
335
Selangor
311
k68
263
361
Pahang
136
225
Federated Malay States
308
k4k
Johore
190
253
Kedah
357
Per1is
uk
245
Kelantazi
128
225
61
61
308
k05
Sembilan
¶ienganu
British Nalaya
258
1921,
t:h
proortiou of feria1es per
thousand m1es amonr the Indians rose fron 308 ii
1911 to 405. The tota' enwiieratect was .335,485 males
nd 136,181 females. I
Indian fema1e
Contrast rith th
Chinese
by 1921 we'e mort numerous among
the Indian agricultural labourei's, and chiefly in
the Federated Malay States. The proportion of
majan females was higher in the agricultural
districts of Perak, Se1anor and iCedah, but in
Singapore, where the population was exclusively
irban, there was a lower percentage of Indian
onien.
In 1931 the proportion o
Indian females
per thousand males increased from FO5 in 192]. to
di2. For the Indian estate population, the sex
ratio was higher: 6kf females for every thousand
ialee, eQ that on the estates there wexe over
three females for every five males.
Of the
624,009 Indians enumerated in the Census, 202,981
were females while k21,028 were males,75 as shown
259
by the f11owing table.
Table
i6:
Indians by Sex in 1931.
State or Settlement
Males
Females
Persons
Singapore
k2,998
8,021
51,019
Penang
39,kll
18,609
58,020
Malacca
15,73k
7,50L4.
23,238
98,13
3]3+
132,277
103,361
55,791
159,152
98163k
57,290
155,92k
Negri Seibi1an
33,538
16,562
50,100
Pahan
iO,k58
4,362
lk,820
Federated Malay States 2k5,991
i3k,0O5
379,996
Straits Settlements
.
Perak
Selangor
Johore
36,853
14_,_]8_5_
5i038
Kedah
32,210
18,614
50,82k
281
966
1,592
6,752
70
1,371
k
377
Penis
.
68
Kelantan
5,160
TrenRganu
1,301.
Brunel
British Ma1aa
.
323
:
L'21,028
202,981
.
62'i-,009
260
At th
end of 1936, thc ratio of females
per thousand males was t67.77 In 1939, the proportion
of Indian males per 100 fem1es was 195 while in
19ko it decreased to 191. Iii 19k? the ratio o1
females por thousand males was 692. Thus the sex
ratio moved towards a more even distribution of
males and females, 1eadin
to greater stabilitr
of fanii].y life among the Iadiari irunirants.
Therefore the seasonal flow of immigrants
and emigrants between Inaia ad Malaya was instxinaental
in building up
iaya8
domiciled Indian pcpulation in
is clear that the growth of the Indian
pojnilation in Malaya was closely linked up with the
modern development of the countrr. Just as the
rubber and oil palm plantations, the railway and
road construction could not do without the influx
of Indian labour, so in the same way, there would
be
o growth of the Indian population without the
261
demand for Indian labour created by the economic
development of Malaya. This idea is echoed in a
more !orceful way:
The story o the growth of the Indian
poDulation after 1900 is tied up very
cJosely to the expansion of the public
works, projects of the Governrieut and
the oil palm and rubber estates,
prticu1rIy the latter, which now
replaced the sugar and coffee enterpriBes
as these dwindled owing to unfa-ourab1e
market conditions.79
The £'rowth of the Indian population
was also conditioned by the econoniic 'climate'
t.jf
Malaya. In 1920 when there was ari economic setback
due to the inflated demand for rubber and tin as
g consequence of the Great TVar, the tide of
immigration slowed down for about two years. The
population figures also registered a cormsponding
fail foi the same period. But when rubber restrictions
were imposed, and the prices of ribber rose, the
immigrants poured in again. Therefore the Indian
population of Malaya rose from less than three
and a quarter millions in 1923 to over four and a
262
h1f millions in er1y 1930. But the priniary
factor ihich influenced the
populetion was the
xowtb of the Indian
niixationa1 surplus' which
held tile field ur to the 1930t6. During this time
the Indians1 1i1e the Chinese, formed the TTf1oatin
oDu1ation' of the country v'ith thousands entering
end leaving annua11y
But since the Seconc3 7Joi'ld
?Tar1 the Indian community grew to be an integral
part of the Nalayan picture. It i
easy to undemtand
why the High Conmissioner in 1.952 streßsed that
the Indians in Malaya were no longer migrants but
were there to stay,
nd that they must be treated
as citizens of' Malayas
263
Footnotes.
I
Maurice
in Malnya't,
'reec)iflan
"The Crowth of a Plural Society
cific Affairs Vol. XXXIII, 2(Jtne 1960)
p.165.
2
othuen
Poland Braddell, The 1ights of Singapore,
and Co. Ltd., 193k p.k9. (Hereafter cited as Ro1nd
radde11 , Singre .)
:5
Joanna Moore, The Land and Peo1e of Mala7a Etnd
Singajore, London, Adam and Charles Black, 1957,
p.65.
k
,
Lasker, Pecles of' Southeast &sia, Viotor
Gollanoz Ltd., London, 194sf p.8Zf....85.
Roland Braddell, Singapore p.f9.
6
KaDunakaran, India in Vor1d Affairs, The
Indian Council of World Affairs, 1952, p.65.
7 T.H. Silcock and U.k. Aziz, tINgtjofla1j$
Asian Nationalism and the WeSt, WL.
in Malaya't,
o1iand (ed.),
The Macmillan Company, New Tok, 193 p.269.
8 C.A. Viieland, "The Population of the Malay
Peninsula: A. Study in Human Migration", The eographical
26k
Review, Vol. XXIV (January 1934) p.78.
9
C.F. Ariarews, ?TIndjaT
iiigratiori Problem",
Foreign Affairs, Vol. VIII, 2(Aprl 1930) p.432.
10
Nathan, The Census of British Malaya 1921,
London 1922, p.1S pzra. 51. (Hereafter cited as
Nathan, Census of 1921)
11
O.A. Vlielsnd1 British Malaya: A
eport on the
1931 Census and on certain Problems of Vital
Statistics, London: Crown Agents for the Colonies
p.105 (Hereafter cited as Viieland, Census of 1931)
12
13
ibid
p.1O.
jbjd
p.50.
1k
Viieland divides the Malayan Peninsula
into three parts: the Colony of Singapore; Old
Malay which comprises of the states of Kelantan
and frengganu and New Malaya which comprises the
remainder of the Peninsula, including the settlements
of Penan
and Ma1acca
See "Tbe 197 Census of
Malaya", Pacific Affairs, Vol. XXII, 1(Marcb 19k9)
IP ' 60,
265
:i
K. Jeadea, Ulfldjan Immigration into Malaya,
l910194]." U'ub1ishec B.. (Hots.) Thesis,
University of Sinapore 1959 p3O-3l. (Iereafter
cited as Jeadeva, Indian Immigration.)
16
Venkatachar, Annual eort of the Agent
of the Governent of India in British Malaya for
the year 1937, New Delhi 1939, p.2.
17
.
Map I :is taken frani the book Malaya by NS. Ginsburg
and :?.R. Chester, Seattle, 1958.
18
Bruno Lasker, Asia on the Move, New York 19k6,
p
19 Xernial Singh Sandhu, Thdians in Modern Malaya,
a manuscript of a forthcoming publication, by
Donald Moore in the Background for Malaya Series,
p.51-55. Qereafter cited as SandhuIndians.)
20
2].
Jegadeva, Indian Imniigration p.30.
Rodder, '1Racial Gioupings in Singaporet1,
Malayan .Journal oi Tropieal eogahy, Vol. 1,
(October 1953) p.33.
22
Naztjundan, Indians in Malayan Economy, New
266
Delhi1 1951, p.1k. (Eereafter cited as Nanjiindan,
Iiic3 jans)
23
H.fl. Cheeseman, "Educatioa in
alaya 1900-19k1"
The Ma1yan HistoricJ. Journal, Vol. 2J. (Juay 1955)
p 42.
2k
LA. Mukundan
Annual Report of the Agent of the
Government of India in British Malaya for the year
New Delhi, p.1.
25
26
Sandhu,, Indians, p.61.
c.s. Venkatachar, Annual Rep't cf the Agnt of
the Government of India in British Malaya for the
Year 1937, p.2.
27
28
.
Nanjundan, I1dans, p.10.
This table is compiled from the available Census
Peorts and Reports of the Agent of the Government
of India in British Ma1ay. It has been found
convenient to include Brunei, although it is no
longer considered part of Malaya.
29
30
Indians, p.30-35.
are3 The Census of the Population 19g,
267
federated Nalay
tates1 Selangor 1902, p.23.
(Hereafter cited as Hare, The Census oÍ 1901)
31
32
33
p22.
p.22.
i'ranjunaan, Indians, p.11.
314.
Powtney, The Census oÍ the Federated
Malay States, 1911 London 1911, p.22. (Hereafter
cited as Pourtney
35
36
The Census of 1911.)
ibid., p.21.
Nathan, Census of 1921, p.34, para. 128.
ibid., p.35.
38
ibid., p.35.
39 Nanjundan, Indians, p.12.
ko
L.1
Ylieland, The Census of 1931 p.39.
Karl J. Pelzer, An Economic Survey of the
_ifiç Area: Population and Land lJtilization,
Pax't I, Institute of Pacific Relations, 19k1 p.49.
(Hereafter cited as Peizer, Population and Land
Utilization.)
k2
M.K. Nair, Annual Report of the Agent of the
268
C-verninent of India in British Malaya for the
ar
1932, Kuala Lurnpur, 1933, p.22.
¿f3
G.A. Vlieland
Population of the Malay
Peninsula: A !tudy in Rrnnan Migration't1 The
Geopraphical Peview, Vol.
CXIV (January 193k) p.76.
¿j4
Poli Seng, ttThe Population Growth of Sinapor&',
Malyan Economic
eview, Vol
k (October 1959) p.58.
(Hereafter cited as You l'oh Seng, tTpopiilation
Growth' ,)
1f5
Bruno Lasker, Asia on the Move, New York 19ko,
p.60.
k6
3asker, "Population Shifts in South-East
sia" Far Eastern Survey, Vol. XiIi, 22 (November l
19kLf) p.201.
47
T.E. Smith1 Population Growth in Malaya: an
Analysis of Recent Treids, Royal Institute of
International Affairs, New Yoi'Ic, 1952, p.8k.
48
Morrison, "Aspects of the Racial Problem
in 4a1aya", Pacific Affairs, Vol. XXII, lCMarcb 1949)
p.239.
269
+9
Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Kzights of
Euhido: A Short History of Japanese iar Criiies,
Cassell and Conipany Ltd., London, 1958 p.82.
(Eereafter cited as Russell, Japanese 'lar Criies)
50
Skinner, Chinese
oiety in Thailand: ai
Analytical History, Cornell University Presse !W
!oxk, 1957, p.273.
5).
C.A. Fisher, !IThe Thailand-Burma Railway"
Economic Geogray, VoL 23(April 19k7) p.9k.
52
liastain, thite Coolie, Hodder and Stoughton
Ltd., London, 19k7, p.16.
3 John Coast, Railroad of' Death, The Commodore
Presse London 19k6, p.l3a.
51f
Japanese War Cries, p.93.
55 Sandhu, Indian8, p.4.1
56
Sepan
to the writez during an interview at
Estate. It seems that Murugese succeeded
in escaping from the railway line to the
ung1e,
and there he caught the train to Malaya, where
be had to hide until he reached the estate where
270
he worked before the Japanese took hi
57
away.
s. Dutt, Annual ieport oí the Agent of the
Agent oÍ the Government of India in Malaya for
the Year
19ko1
Government of India Press, Zintla
19+3. p.2.
58
L.A. Mills, The New 7/orid of South-East Asia,
Minnesota
191f 9.
59 it is difficult to assess the number of Indians
who perished while being engaged in the construction
of the Burma-Siam Railway. Nanjundan estimates
that more than 20,000 Indian labourers perished in
this way. Sandhu assesses that it was about 50,000,
while Dr. ILK. Menen estimates that more than
1001000 Indians were decimated. See "Indian
immigration in Malaya", Interpreter& Annual
l948_Z.9, p.38.
60
61
62
63
Pountney, The Census of 1911, p.28.
Sandbu, Indian
p.6?.
Hare, The Census of90i, p.34.
Vj.ieland, The Census of 1931, p.S6.
2?1
6L.
This was the system prevalent in tudian society
which necessitated the women to wear veils oa
their faces, to screen them fron the sight of
strangers. This system also called for the secLusion
of women of rank.
6
C,A, Viieland, 11The Population of the Malay
Peninsula: a Study in liunian Migrationtt, The Geogxaphical
Review, Vol. XXIV (January l93f) p.77.
Report of the &ecutive of the General Labour
Committee, British Malaya on Indian Labour and
oirer, Kuala Lumpur, 1920, p.6.
67
LA. Mukundan, Annual Report of the 4gent of the
Government of India in British Malaya for the Year
1936,
Tew Delhi 1937, p.23.
68
69
Pob Seng, ttPopulation Growth", p
.jnnua1 Report of the Laboizr Department, Malayan
Union for the Year l947
p.2k.
70 Pountney, The Census of 19l, p.30.
71 N.S.
insbur
l98, p.317.
and F.R. Gliester, Malaya,
eatt1e
272
72
nathan, The Census ot 1921,
73
7k
75
76
.5O.
ibia, 1D.k6
Viieland, The Census o
1931, p.O-k1.
Peizer, Population and Land Utilization, p.50.
Viieland, The Census or 1931,
7?
Mukundan
.l2lò
Annual Report of the Agent of
the Government of India iii Brjtish Malaya for the
Year 1_2, New Delhi 1937e p.23.
78
LV. 30va211, :2nomic Relations of India with
South-East
p .
sia and the
19
79 znahu, Indians,
80
r East, New ZeThi 19k9
.36
.
.
.
Annual Report of the Uiiited Planting A.ssociaton
of Mala7a for the year l92.
CHAPTER V.
LIFE AND WELFARE IN A
LAJD.
It is difficult to evaluate accurately
the economic and moral well-being of the Indians
in Malaya
The popular opinion is that the Indians
in Malaya were "happy children in a happy land."
On this issue opinion is fretfully divided as the
quills of a porcupine. What is the truth about
them?
Distant observers may well interpret
that the Indian labourers were enjoying life in
an earthly paradise. This section pictures the
Indians as getting high wages and many other
amenities of life free on the estates: free
passage, good housing1 education and medical
help. They would be paternally looked after by the
employers, the Fnigration Department of the
Government of India and the Labour I)epartment in
Malaya. In the light of this opinion the Indian
labourere are pictured in the brightest colours
274
posib1e.1 On the other hand, there are some critics
who maintain that the Indian labourers were underpaid,
underfed and exploited by the employers with the
connivance of the Government. They renard that
Tilndian labour in Malaya was in a demoralized and
degraded condition earning a mere subsistence wage
to keep body arid soul together."2 How the happy
medium betweer. these two contrasting opinions can
be drawn depends upon the type of people viewing
the labour problem, the period of history during
which it is viewed and the perspective from which
it is viewed. ]n this I incline more to M.N. Nair's
opinion:
........ . the condition of labour in
Malaya is not entirely satisfactory and
that there is much scope for iriprovement
.......... the Indian labourer is better
off in Malaya than in India under
present conditioris prevailing in India.
Th Malaya today the Indians are usually
tolerant of the other races. They are generally
free of their caste prejudices4 which bad been so
275
overwhelming in Indian villages scrosc the Bay of
Bengal. This can be attributed to a set of complex
factors. The second-generation Indians who were
born in the nevi land were generally ignorant of
the notions of caste.5 But even if they were
aware of this system, working and living Conditions
tended to reduce the rigid caste distinctions.
Besides Hindus of all castes emigrated to Malaya.
The dispsrìty of the sex ratio and intermarriage
among Hindus were also responsible. On estates
and in towns, the Indians mingled with the other
races: the Malays and the Chinese. The absence of
the Caste system among them must have influenced
the Indians considerably. In schools the Indian
children played arid mingled together. Thus over
the years
weakened
the caste prejudices of these immigrants
nd ultimately disappeared. The coming of
the trade unions necessitated that the Indians
should meet together for discussion in a tolerant
atmosphere. In towns and on estates, the Indian
276
inrnii'rants were "devoid of religious fanaticism.t'
They learnt from the start to be broadminded and
tolerant towards the religions and customs of others.
In short, even today, the Indians in Malaya are
cosmopolitan.
One particular feature which springs to
mind when reviewing the Indian community in the
country is that the Indians lived as foreigners far
more rigidly than the Chinese. In fact when they
first came they brought along with them nearly all
their own customs and ceremonjals.7 The Indian labourers
brought the temple and the pncbyat to the estates
in Malaya. The panchayat, a tribunal of elders
entrusted with maintaining order and settling disputes
on the estates, wielded great influence over the
labourers when they were established.8 But today,
the panchyats bave lost almost all their importance
due to the change in the outlook of the labourer1
the growing importance of trade unions and the
influence of education. With nearly their own customs
277
and institutions, the Indians did not experience
what is often called a "culture shockV that is,
the breaking away of their long established
aprarian cultures, and their beliefs and instithtions.9
They refused to identify themselves with the other
races, neither to adopt their cultures, their
dress, their food nor to intermarry with them0
Therefore the Indians built a "little Indiafl
11
in
Malaya, and within its walls, the Indian diet was
maintained, the same costume worn and the native
language spoken. As Maurice Freedman suggests:
. . . . . .... the Indians who arrived in
Malaya have remained ................
Indians not only in the eyes of census
takers but also in culture, social12
organization and political status.
Thus it is obvious that in former times
the Indians lived as foreigners. Of course there
were cases of Indians who bad become assimilated
into Malayan society, but they were aU too few.
The Chinese community formed a sharp contrast.
They usually mixed with the other local peoples
278
tnd were not rigid in their ways of life, They
adopted the dress, food habits and. ways of living
of the local people.
In former times, the Indians were regarded
by the Malaya and Chinese with veiled contempt.13
The Indians were despised upon because of their
social status. Most of them worked as labourers who
were willing to accept wages which the other races
considered it beneath their dignity to accept.
The feeling towards the Indians was one of inferiority.
Their status were far below that of the other
communities in the country.15 But what Neelakandha
writes is true only of the period before the Second
World War:
The position of Indian labour in Malaya
is not definitely one of a self-reliant
coherent organized body, ordinarily able
to look after itself with a certain
amount of protection that every labouriug
population stands in need of. Even with
the mass of legislative enactments that
have been passed to protect the rights
many at any rate
of Indian labour
in recent times at the instance of the
thefl has been
Governnent of India
little advance in its stattzs.°
279
But today there is
tremendous cbnge
in the social status of the Incien labourers ïri
Malaya. The cha nre of terms from "labourers' lines"
to "workers' auarters" is evicence that the social
status of the Indians hs been raised. Another
evidence is the occasion when the Righ Commisioner
Sir Donald MacGillivray presented a Challenge Cup
to be competed for between Estate Football teams
in l956?' The rise of trade unions perhaps may
also be responsible. In the post-war years there
is
the growth of individialism and independence
among the young Indians.
Ties With the Komeland: In assessing the attachment
of immigrants to their homeland, it is necessary to
evaluate two characteristics fauna among immigrants
the number of occasions they have returned
to their homeland since they first arrived and the
frequency with which they remit money to relatives
or dependanta in the bomeland.18 Besides these,
there are many other elements to be taken into
280
consideration: the rigidities of Oustoms, and
traditions of tho immigrants, thoir ideological
sympathies and their cultural attachments. In
view of these, the ties of the Indian immigrant
with his homeland pre-war were closer than those
of the Chinese immigrant.19 In fact of all the
Asian immigrants in the country, the Indian was
culturally, politically and economically attached
to his motherland. This can be proved by an array
of factors. The fact that most of the Indian
immigrants had left their families in India
strengthened their sentiments towards their own
country. The Indians remitted money to their
dependents in their homeland to a greater extent
than the case with the Chinese. It has been
estimated that more than half of the single Indians
remitted money home compared to just over a quarter
among the single Chinese.2° Indian husbands in
Malaya were less prone than the Chinese to neglect
their wires and children financially. Another
281
evidence to show that the Indian imniigrants
maintained close ties with their mother-country
is that the proportion in 19k7 of those who had
returned home was higher among the Indians than
among the Chinese or Malaysian immigrants. Even
among the local-born Indians a greater porcentage
12 per cent
had visited India as
against the 5 per cent among local-born Chinese
who had visited China. The close ties between the
Indians and their homeland can be accounted for
by the paternal arrangements made by the Government
of India for the welfare of unskilled labour in
Malaya, and perhaps their notions of caste and
religion bound them to India.21
The ties with the homeland of course
varied with the" Indian" Indians arid the TTMalayan!I
Indians. The former group was very intense about
their loyalty to India. This was the group of
temporary sojourners in a land of opportunity,
with an interest purely in the material competence
282
thoy expected to amass before returning to their
homeland. The TlMalayanfl Indians gradually increased
after the l93Ot8. These were the "Malcyaborn
Indians" who had forgotten the Tamil language and
cared nothing for caste.22 They were permanently
settled in the country, and had established themselves
in the economy of the society, competing against
the indigenous people there. The ties with the
homeland among this group could not be strong. Today
the Indians in Malaya are "Malayan" Indians and. they
take an active interest in the well-being of the
country.
Re]4g,ons and Festivals: The Indiane brought their
religions along to the new country, just as they
brought along their customs and other Indian
institutions. The religions of the imiiigrants
survive to the present day, as also their religious
festivals. The majority of the Indians in the country
are Ilindus, but there is a sprinkling of Moslems,
6hristiaus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. The Hindus
283
are very z.ealous about their religion and. particiate
actively in the various religious festivals. The
Hindus in Malaya celebrate Taipusam, the birthday
of the god Subrarnanian and is a day of worship ad
penances It usually falls in January or February.
During this festïval, the devotees perform acts of
self-torture as acts of penance. They usually ta1e
the form of lifting the kavadi, walking on fire,
wearing spikes and others.23 They hope to pacify
and propitiate their gods by mortifying the flesh.
Another festival which is observed even today is
Depavali, the Festival of Lights. The theme of
the celebration 'tcentres on the supreme triumph
2Lf
of good over evil, of light over darkness.'
During the festival, candles are lit while the
houses are decorated with flags and festoons. The
festival is also known as I(araka Chathurdasi Day,
which marks the commemoration in Hindu mythology
of the liberation from the rule of the demon
Narak.sura by Lord Vishnu, who killed the monster.
4ì
The celebration of the festival involves thorough
cleaning of the houses in order to prepare for the
coming of Lakshmi, the Goddess of Wealth who it is
believed visits round the world at midnight. The
Goddess visits only the cleanest houses for she
prefers cleanliness, On Deepavall Day, the people
clean themselves thoroughly and in the evening put
on new clothes to go Deepavali shopping for sweetmeats,
toys and fireworks for the children. In the house
clay figurines cf Lakshmi arid Ganesh25 (the God
with an elephant's head) are placed and offerings
are made to them. To a Hindu, Ganesh is the god of
prudence and prosperity; he must obtain the blessings
from Ganesh before he can worship any deity.
The religion of the Indian Hindus in
Ma].aya
as in.
Indias
centres on "absolute freedcni
o seek communion with God ............... there
is no regimentation, no dogma which must be believed
each person makes his own search to find the great
truths of life: the individual is responsible for
285
afl. -his acts, for which he gets bis rewards or
punishments according to divine dispensation.126
The fervent Hindu believes that time does its work
and that events disappear with time. One particular
point to notice about their religion is that the
Indian Hindus can worship many gods. In each estate
temple there are various gods. The Indian labourers
on the estate do not mind transferring their worship
from one god to another
from a beneo1ent
Vishnu to a terrifying Kali.27 Sometimes if the
god worshipped proves unpropitious, then the worshippers
will transfer their offerings to another god by building
a new temple and demolishing the old one.
Even today among the Hindu community on
estates, there are temples or sapy houses. This
the Hindus brought to Malaya when they first came,
for "the temple always goes with Tamils wherever
they may be settled." These temples are maintained
by the contribution of the labourers, and those who
presided over them are priests or Brahmins of higher
caste. As Henry A. Haviland, a coffee planter
in Perak wrote in 1902:
I know of no estate ........ .. upon
'.thich Ta'iils in s quantity are collected
topethq that has not its own seamy
house.
emp1es in towns are usually built by the Chettiars
or other Indian money-lenders. The latter in former
times, poured out money to build temples, and also
for the maintenance of priests. Besides templos
the Indiane also place shrines in caves, by a large
rock or at the foot of a banyan tree. Besides for
religious purposes, the temples also serve as the
centre of social life especially on the estates.29
There discussions and meetings are held so that
the Indians can put forward matters of common
interest.
Indian Education: Pr s-war the Indian children were
educated in various kinds of schools. First and
foremost, there were the Ñiglish schools in which
the medium of instruction was English. These English
schools must not be mistaken with schools for children
287
of English descent.3° These schools drew their
enrolment mostly from the Chinese, the Indians
and the Eurasians, but there were very few Malays,
for the latter preferred to send their children to
the villape Malay schools. In big towns, the Indians
of the non-labouring class preferred to send their
children to English schools, but usually the Indian
pupils in English schools were those who had
received some educotion in vernacular schools.31
In Singapore, the majority of Indian children went
to English schools.32 In the Tamil vernacular schools,
the
o1e medium of instruction was Tamil. Naturally
the Tilndjantl Indians would prefer to send their
children to these vernaculax
cbools. Indian vernacular
schools were of five types. The first consisted of
estate-schools maintained by estates for the children
of the labour forces. Secondly there were those
schools maintained by missions or by associations.
These two kinds of schools received grants from the
Government. Thirdly there were proprietary schools
run by proprie tar-teachers mainly for profit.
These
choo1s were few in number. The fourth type
was Government Tamil schools (unrepresented in the
C traits Settlements and the Unfederated Malay
States) which in 1938 numbered eight in Perak,
four in Selangor and one in NegDi Cembilan. There
was the fifth type of Indian vernacu1zr schools:
those conducted by a sìn1e Department. For example,
in Klang there was the Sanitary Board (Municipal)
Tamil School which existed primarily for the
children of the Sanitary Board employees.33 Subjects
taught at these schools included reading, writing,
dictation and arithmetic, and in the higher classes,
composition and geography. Suitable Tamil text-books
in local arithmetic and local geography were not
aaequate.3L1 The education of Indian girls constituted
a problem, for the majority of the Indians were
completely indifferent whether their girls attended
schools or not.35 By 19ko, in various Indian schools,
9,803 were girls, representing 36 per cent of the
pupils in these schools. Li Singapore there was
only one Indian vernacular school exclusively
for girls
the Saradanian.ì School. There were
two Catholic Mission Taìni]. Schools in Singapore
and one in Penang, Taiping, Ipoh arid Seremban
which were attended by girls, but there were also
boys in the lower stanarcis.6
Estate-schools were conducted on rubber,
oil-palm and other estates, for according to the
Labour Code, the Controller of Labour had the
power to require anj employer on an estate to
provide a school where there were ten or more
children between the ages of seven and fourteen,
and to maintain it at his expense.3' Estate schools
were mainly ¶amil schools, but there were also Telegu
schools, and schools with
alayala1n, Eindi and
Punjabi sections. In Pahang, there was an example
of a school which had three sections: Tamil, Teleu
and Malayalam. In spite of the statutory obligation,
estate education was not satisfactory. This was
due to a complex set of factors. The estate-schools
were primitive and. were niere "reproductions of the
small indigenous village school of southern India.'8
On many estates the housing of the schools were
dark, dirty places, and more important, the teachers
employed were of inferior cinality. Kanganies
sometimes would serve as part-time teachers. Due
to the indifference on the part of the planters,
estate-schools deteriorated in quality. The estateschools expanded and contracted according to the
price of rubber. With high rubber prices improvements
in these schools were remarkable. With poor rubber
prices there was curtailment in expenses arid
retrenchment of staff. Parents were more anxious
that their children should earn money or do household
work or run errands, and so kept the children away
from schoo]..39 Therefore the pupils were irregular
and unpunc tuai in their attendance at schools. The
course in the estate-schools usually took six years,
but children rarely attended so long. They usually
291
studied for two to three years, and could learn
very little within this short time. Besides
education on estate schools was not compu].sory
and children rather stayed away to play. Generally
the estate labour force was migratory and this
had an adverse effect on the development of estate
education. The lack of funds hampered the progress
of estate education. The management of these schools
was
entirely left to the employers. There might
have been better estate education had the Government
assumed the management and financial responsibility
of estate schools, instead of in recent times. As
early as 1938, Mr. SB. Palmer President of the
United Planting Association of Malaya, in his
address to the Association, recognized the need of
Government interference in estate schools.
41
Some estate-schools were run ef:ficiently,
like the one in Caledonia Estate in Province
Welleeley. But generally most of these
existed
choo1s
in order to comply with the injunctions
292
of the Labour Code, and to provide an asylum for
the children during the hours when their parents
are working in the field.TTk2 The responsibility
for this could not be relegated to the planters
and managers alone. Most managers realized that
a good school was an asset to the estate. But
they could not be expected to be good educa.ticnaliste
and perform miracles in estate education. In fact
they tried to help by providing a free meal every
day in school or by giving a free supply of rice
every month. The Government provided grants for
these estate schools. In 1933, the grants amounted
to $63,fk9 bu
the next year it was $58,15k. This
was due to the introduction of appropriating $6
per pupil instead of resorting to the system of
giving grants according to the efficiency of the
schoole and the standard of the pupils.
The slow progress in Indian education
as a whole was partly due to the policy of the
Government regarding education. Up to the First
2 9
,?orld Var the attention of the (3overnnent was
concentrated in the provision of free Malay primary
schools, which in theory were open to the children
of all races.
But in practice they were attended
only by Malay children, for the Indians and Chinese
preferred to send their children to their own
vernacular schools or English schools. The Government
had concentrated on Malay education and had neglected
other vernacular education. In the Straits Settlements
and the Federated Malay States, vernacular education
was compulsory for the Malays, while for the Indians
and Chinese it was only voluntary. Till 1938, there
was not a single Government Tamil school in the
Straits Settlements, nor in any of the Unfederated
Malay States.
According to the figures given by
the Director of Education in his report for 1937,
about 20.0 per cent of the funds set apart for
education were spent on Malay education while only
-
about 5 per cent were spent on Thmil education.
k6
In fact the Government's policy was expressed by
29k
the British Resident of Selangor at a meeting of
the Selangor State 0ouncii:k7
........... could not accett the view
that Government must educate in the
vernacular, children of immigrant races.
Government would provide education for
the natives of the country but others
must pay for the education in their own
3. anguage ...........
Speaking on Indian education ix general,
the quality was poor. Due to the relative brevity
of their stay in Malaya before the 1930's there
was very little development of educational techniques
in Indian schools, The teachers were of inferior
quality for there were no local training classes.
The salaries of teachers were very low, averaging
under 2O per month. No trained teachers could be
obtained from India on this low saiary.k8 The salaries
of teachers were higher in aided, private and mission
schools, but were lowest in estate-schools, for
there most of the teachers were often clerks and
dressers who did the teaching in addition to their
other work.1
It was only i
1938 that local training
classes were instituted and in April 1938 an officer
of the IIalayau Mucation ')epartment was appointed
Inspector of Indian schools.50 From this time
onwards, there wa
rapid improvement. However, the
statement made by Dr. Ho Seng Ong concerning Chinese
schools,
51
The
and
an
for
early schools were poorly managed,
buildirge tnd equipment were ina.dequate,
the teachers bad the least qualifications
their responsible cal1in,
can be repeated word for vïord in describing the
early indian schools.
In former times the Indian attitude towards
education was that freedom should be given to their
children to appreciate their own native heritage
and culture, and that development of English education
must not be to the extent that it would exclude that
of other vernaculars. But today there is a change
because it is recognized that the learning of English
is the "open sesame" to' econonic prosperity. Therefore
many of the Indian children crowd in the English
schools today.
296
Life ori Estates: As early as 188k the eniployors
of statute immigrants were required by law to
provide for them proper and sufficient accommodation,
a sufficient supnly of wholesome water, uncooked
rations at wholesale current market prices, hospital
accotuiodatjon and medical attention.52 But
neral1y
speaking, the living and working conditions of
indentured labourers were not satisfactory. The
death-rates among indentured immigrants were higher
than among unindentured labourers. On estates where
the general conditions of water suly, house
accommodation and sanitary arrangements were not
at fault, still a great number of indentured labourers
died. This was perhaps due to the fact that the
statute immigrants were generally disgusted with
their lot, and were bound down to the estate for
600 days at wages of 25 cents per diem. They witnessed
other free coolies earning as much as 50 cents a
day
The constant vigilance of watchmen restricted
their freedom
The hours of work for statute immigrants
297
were longer than those of free labourers. These
conditions enendereçi in them careless regard for
life, making them easy taret for the attacks of
malaria arid other tropical diseases.53
The house accommodation for statute
immiCrants was far from satisfactory. The quarters
provided on estates varied from the well-kept
buildings on some of the estates in ProvinceWellesley
to "squalid hovels.TT5k Generally the quarters were
built of atap or bertam or with mud walls. Sometimes
there would be partitions but more often they were
left as open barracks. Verandahs were provided,
frani three to ten feet in width. Cooking was done
either in these verandahs or inside the quarters.
The quarters were one-s torey buildings, but sometimes
in order to provide for increased occupants temporary
structures would be added inside the rooms or in
the verandahe. There would be little ventilation
for these labourers objected to having apertures
in their quarters. Many of the quarters were often
298
overcrowded:55 rooms of ten feet scuare usually
accovjiiodated six persons. In rooms of 20 feet by
l+ feet, eighteen people would often be found,
men and women indiscriminately. To or three
married couples would be assigned one room, and
the extent of privacy afforded can very well be
imagined. It has been pointed out by some that
the Indian coolieswere not particular about his
place of accommodation but it can scarcely be
doubted that the coolies who lived in tidy and prorer
quarters were most contented and in the best health.
When indentured labour was abolished
in 1910, it was replaced by !Tfreeu or kangany-
recruited labour. What were the living conditions
of this type of labourers? On the estates the
employers were obliged by law to provide certain
amenities for these labourers. There was the system
of supplying rice to labourers on estates at less
than cost price. This was of some benefit to the
labourers, for the rice sold was cheaper. But certain
conditions necessitated the labourers to buy rice
frofl their employers: on some estates there were
no shops from which the labourers couic1, buy rice
or other provisions; after paying the employers
for the previous month's supply, the coolies would
have very little surplus to purchase rice outside
the estates. A creche or nursery was provided when
the number of children on the estate necessitated
it. Children were looked after while their mothers
were at work. On some estates, milk was provided
free of charge to small children upon the advice
of the Health Officer or Visiting Medical Practitioner.
Water supplies on estates varied considerably: on
some estates even piped water was provided. But
the Tamils tended to destroy pumps and taps and
revert to the old method of drawing water from
wells by buckets.6 Thus some of them died from
water pollution for the ropes and buckets were not
aften very clean. Maternitf benefits were provided
under Section 75 of the Labour Code of 1923. They
300
were paid at the rates of
of six month& earnings
for the first child and
of eleven
onths
earnings for subsequent children.57 The expectant
mother could stoD work a month before birth and also
a month after birth.
Usually on large estates, well-equipped
and modern hospitals were 3rovided, and undoubtedly
the labourers there received excellent medical
attention. But the flaw was that on many of the
small estates there was no hospital and patients
needing hospitalization had to be sent to the nearest
Government hospital, sometimes ten miles away. There
was a dispensary in charge of a dresser who could
only attend to minor ailments and slight injuries.
More often than not the dresser would also be a
conductor and clerk of the estate. This gave rise
to confusion and neglect of his medical duties, for
as conductor he would have to keep check of the
presence or absence of the labourers at work in the
fields and as clerk he bad to maintain a register
of attendance. The Sastri Report of 1937 recornmende3
that dressers on small estates should be well cualified,
and that the?r should devote their time wholly to the
medical care of the labourers on the estates.5
The hospital buildings were generally of
two types: the first type consisted of wooden floors
raised two to four feet above the ground and wellbuilt and ventilated. The second type consisted of
a bare earth, generally built on ground level.59
In 1911 when the F.I.S. Health Department was formed,
the officers encouraged the p1nters of small estates
to combine and build group 1ospitals, rather than
to send patients to distant Government hospitals
or to have full-time qualified medical practitioners.
The Indian labourers objected to Governzrient hospitals
not on grounds of insufficient food or poor medical
treatment, but because in Government hospitals they
would be far away from borne. When a man falls ill
be prefers to be among his friends. In estate hospitals,
the Indian labourer would be surrounded by frienda
302
and relations. He could still enjoy the luxury of
cigarettes, tobacco and betelnut. But once he found
himself in a government hospital, ho would be
s'rrounded by strauers and it is no wonder that
he would abscond when sent to one. Thus group
hospitals were encouraged to be built on sal1
estates.
According to the Malay Labour Statutes
every labourer on an estate should be provided with
an allotment of land for his own cultivation. The
allotted land was to be in the proportion of
of an acre for every labourer and his family. The
provision of allotments aimed at securing the
contentment of the labourers as well as to increase
the homegrown food supply so as to enable the
labourers to supplement their diet and earnings.
6o
This aim was not realized for usually the land
provided for the labourer was so far away from the
estate that it did not induce him to cultivate it
tor his own profit. The transient nature of the
303
Indian immigrants before the 1930's meant that it
was no profit to cultivate a piece of land, when
after two to three years the Indians would return
to India.
Ioreover the Chinese, beine expert
vegetable gardeners, competed successfully in
selling their riroduce at cheaper prices.
On estates housing was also provided
by the employers. The old type of lines consisted
of wooden barrack-like structures, with atap roofs
or of local palnis, or tiles or corrugated iron.
The line was partitioned ana single rooms were
provided back to beck, so that each line was in
fact double structures facing both ways. These lines
were raised on pillars of bricks or wood about six
feet troxu the ground. The spaces underneath were
used either as kitchens or for storing purposes!
Each single room of 10 ft. x 10 ft. accommodated
one family. Little privacy was provided. This type
of quarters was condemned by the Labour Department
which took an active interest on this aspect of
30k
the labour problem. The seooid type vïas the
groinir3-f]oor type with siinil'r interna), construction
but the difference was that they t'ere built on the
ground level. The floor was either of mud or
cenent
This second type was suitable for bill
country while the raised type for badly drained
lariil. But as the Commission Appointed to Enquire
into Certain Matters Affecting the Health of Estates
in the F..S., there was little difference between
the two as regards the effect on the health of
the labourers.61 Actually the Indian labourers were
not used to labour lines: back in the villages in
lndi
they lived i
separate houses or huts. But
in the labour lines there was no privacy and therefore
moral life among the Indians deteriorated.
In the present day, there has been a
tremendous change in the housing provided by the
employers. The new forms consist of larger units
- 15 ft. x 17 ft. They are usually of the cottage
type, consisting of four-roomed bouses to accommodate
305
two families, These are also raised on pillars to
provide coolness and fresh air. Partitions reaching
up the roof
are :provided, thus ensuring privacy
for each family. Kitchens are separated so as to
prevent the smoke from entering into the rooms
inside. Thereas the furniture found on estates in
former times were crude and rudimentary, the
furniture today is elaborate, consisting of tables
and chairs, while in soins cottages curtains
are
hung in the windows.
Health o
Estates: Since 1911 there had been ari
iztimense improvement in the health of the labourers
on estates. But still the death-rate was high
compared with that of estates in Sumatra where the
death rate was about fifteen per mille in 1924.
In Malaya it was 2
per mille.
This was due to
the prevalence of malaria in the country, the
insanitary habits of the South Indian labourers,
the indifference and dislike of the Indian labourers
concerning interference in their living habits and
the reluctance of the planters in Malaya to look
after the health of the labourers. As the Indians
were mainly drawn from the poverty-stricken areas
cf South India, their staniina were reduced and
they becanie easy preys to the scourge of 1nalaria.
The Tamils as a whole were
reluctant to use
latrines, in saite of the managers' persuasions
and threats. This led to promiscuous defoecation,
giving full rein to the spread of ankylcstomniasis.6
The disinclination of the Tamila to use latrines
in those days can be understood for many were
dark dirty places and f ar away from the lines.
But improvements were soon effected.
Excellent work was done to check malaria by many
distinguished doctors and by the Government Medical
Department which carried out research and investigation
in this field. The Health and Labour Departments
also pressed employers to look after the health
of labourers ou estates. Jungles near the sites of
estates were burnt and cleared, and this reduced
307
the prevalence of maljnant diseases. Gradually
the planters abandoned what is often called a
T!splendid isolation" in health matters and
co-operated with each other and the Health Departments.
The improvement of the standard of health on the
estates was also reflected in the children.
That aggravated the problem of health on
estates in Malaya was the food diet of the Indians.
From a nutritive point of view, the normal Tamil
diet left much to be desired. Basically it consisted
of rice with a little salt fish1 meat or other
protein. Dairy produce and eggs were very seldom
used, as they were expensive. Thus the Tanil and
his family were undernourished. Incidence of
xerophthalmia and night blindness were higher among
the Indians than the other races.
The Committee
on Nutrition in the Colonial Ñnpire confirmed
this account of the dietary standards of the Indians
in Malaya:
The basis of the diet of the Southern
308
Indian is arboi1ed rice supplemented
with dhall, spices arid coconut oil
Coconut and sesame oils
are the main sources of fat .........
Analysis of the diets conumed suggests
that they are not well balanced. The protein
standards are low: protein of good quality,
meat, fish, rii].k, eggs are reficient.
The fat is almost entirely of vegetable
oricin, and fat soluble vitaiins A and
D probably below otirnuri renuirements.
Supplementary sources of vitanin A, loafy
vegetables and carotene-containing tubers
are often absent ...... Associated with
these deficiencies, possibly correlated
with them, are levi physical standards,
poor stamina, susceptibility to bacterial
disease and the occurrence of clinical
evidences of lack of,.vitamin A, xerophthalmia
and niçht blindnes.°5
It has been suggested that an improved
diet scale would certainly add much to the well-being
and the happiness of the Indians in tho country.66
But the period after the Zecond Norld War only saw
the improvement of the diet of the Indians. In
pre-war times the estate-shops would not take the
risk of stocking perishable goods, and thus the
Indians could riot buy much fresh food, unless they
went to the local markets.6
But communication was
309
inconvenient and the Idjan were reluctant to
travel over long distsnces. Againct this it cen be
argued that the Indian labourers could supplement
their diet by ciltivating the allotment of land
given ta them by the employers. But very few labourers
would take the trouble, and those who did iould
sell their produce in order to obtain more cash.
The keeping of cattle could also supplement their
diet, but once again the Indians preferred to
regard this as a money-maldng proposition. Besides
the keeping of cattle was frowned upon by the managers
who feared the damage of seedlings and other plants
by straying beasts. The Indians, it is said, are
inclined "to economize at the expense of his stomach,"68
unlike the Chinese who do not grudge spending money
on food. Even in former times the Chinese diet was
more satisfactory for it included a larger proportion
of proteins and fats. Therefore the Chinese labourers
were quite healthy and could work for longer hours.
Conversely the Indians in Malaya were undernourished
310
ncI. were trone to the attacks of malaria and other
!na1inant diseases.6
Another problem among the Indians on
estates in
a1aya, which is still prevalent today,
was that of toddy. In 1912, sDirit-shops were
closed to the Tamil.7° Although this curbed his
inebriety, it had the effect of turning him to
toddy-shops which grew in number to meet the
increased demand. The word 'toddy' is a corruption
of the Tamil word tari, and is the juice extracted
from various palms.71 In the Malayan Peninsula
only the coconut palm is utilized. Toddy is still
the national drink of the Tamil, who believes in
its medicinal power. Opinion is divided concerning
the good and bad effects of toddy. In a letter
written in 1916 Ir. Malcolm 7atson pointed out
that toddy was certainly "an influence affecting
injuriously the public health"72 of the Indian
labourers. In contrast, the opinion of the Senior
Health Officer
f the F.M.S. was that Tttoddy is
311
not a poison any more than beer or cider are
poisons."73 The objection to toddy which still
remains
todays
is that the toddy-drunk labourer
will usually lie out, perhaps on a wet night and
the result will inevitably be malaria and pneumonia.
There is also the danger of toddy poisoning, a1thoub
it is difficult to differentiate between it and
rice poisoning, fungus
oisoning and ptomaine
poisoning. In former times, adulterated toddy was
usually sold, for when the alcohol ferrientation
stopped within forty-eight hours, the process of
acetic fermentation would set in, so that within
four days it rose to a maximum content of four per
cent of acetic acid. The drinking of this adulterated
toddy rendered the labourer susceptible to indigestion
and diarrhoea. Today the Government made it illegal
for adulterated toddy to be sold. In fact toddy-
shopkeepers are only allowed a daily ration and
any toddy which as been left over the preTious day
must be thrown away.
312
enera1ly I incline to the idea that
toddy is not very injurious to the Indian latourers
if the sale of it is properly managed. No disturbance
will be created if the toddy shops are set away
from the roads, with suitable premises where the
labourers can drink their toddy at ease. In former
times, the licensed toddy-shops riere very often
ata
buildings frequently 'cramped, dirty and
saualid, with mud floors.T17k Conseouently the
custQnler6 would crowd on the road and when they
were drunk, trouble would arise. No great harm
will result froni drinking toddy if the utensi1
used for storing and drinking toddy are thoroughly
cleaxzed, and if cupa or tumblers are used instead
of battles. It is no wonder that in former times
it was thought that toddy was very injurious to
health for whenever a labourer turned up at the
toddy-shop for toddy, the toddy-seller would dip
the bottle into the stock of toddy, submerging
the bottle and his hand.
ore often than not the
313
bottle would be very dirty and hence it can be
understood why toddy had su.ch a bad effect on the
labourers of old. Besides if toddy were to be
prohibited, the Indian labourers would always turn
to a hib1y deleterious spirit known as smsu
which is said to be more injurious than toddy to
physical and mental health. Indeed what had deterred
the action on the part of planters and the Governient
to prohibit the sale of toddy even in fcr!!ler times
was that it represented a safeguard against samsu.75
Against this it can be argued that it is
much better to prohibit toddy altogether, for as
the secretary of the Kapar District Hospital pointed
out in 1916, the coolies seemed to get on very well
at Carey Island where toddy-shops were absent.
Besides the excessive drinking of toddy will reduce
the India labourer to poverty1 for it has been
estimated that the average labourer spends about
30 per cent of his earnings on
tdd.6
But it
must not be forgotten that the prohibition of today
31k
will surely turn the labourers to sa'su, the
supression of which will recuire far more
....... ... strenuous efforts on the part
of the a1'yat overnnìent and .........
entail considerable extense.77
On the other hand, the funds accuniulated from the
profits derived from the sale of toddy on estates
can be used for the general welfare of the labourers.
The funds
re subject to the scrutiny of the Labour
Department, so that employers cannot have resort
to it. Row can it be said that
by maintaining the estate toddy shops
what the employers give by orle hand
to the labourers, they take back by the
other hand much to the economic ang
moral detriment of the labourers?7
That there is a deterioration of morals cannot be
doubted. It is useless to inculpate the employers
for this, for in this case morality depends to a
certain extent on the self-discipline of the indian
labourers rather than on the employers. Again it
has been suggested that drink is not essential to
the Tamil and that the sale of toddy can be
315
Drohibited.79 But it serves well to remember that
after a dreary day's iork in the fieli3s, the Tamil
labourers prefer to drink toddy as a sort of relief.
Indeed, ir my opinion, the sale of toddy would not
be very injurious if there is constant vigilance
on the part of the Government and self-discipline
on the part of the labourers.
Life in Towns: Very little is known concerning the
1ivin
conditions of Indian labourers in towns and
other urban areas. Besides the plantations, numerous
Indian labourers were employed by the Government,
the Municipalities, the Public 7orks Department,
the iailways, the Harbour Boards of Singapore and
Penang and the Naval Base at singapore.BO There is
no doubt that their working and living conditions
were miserable. On estates the Indian labourers
were provided with numerous amenities. accept for
the Governmeut which provided quarters for their
etployers, the other Indian labourers in towns
had to fend for themselves. In any case, the quarters
316
provided by the Government for bachelors were far
from satisfactory:
I was shocked beyond words
by the condition of the ouarters provided
for the bachelors. They consist of a
stone barrack-like building which at
the time of my visit was so overcrowded
that it is doubtful if even the barest
requirements of public health were
fulfilled. oth the heat and the smell
of the place were over-powering and
appeared to find no easy exit. The washing
accommodation w8 such that all used water
found its way down the main steps which
form the genera]. entrance. No privacy of
any sort was provided for and no wonder
the place is he scene of frequent disputes
and quarrels.
Many of the Indians in towns were employed
as shop-assistants. They were recruited from India
by Indian shop-owners on the basis of an agreement
whereby they had to work for two to three years,
and in return their passages, board and lodging were
paid for them by the employers. According to an
investigation of the working conditions of the Indian
and Chinese mercantile communities in 1938 by the
a±ts rimes reporters,82 the quarters provided
317
for the Indian shop-assistants were usually located
on the floor above the shops and consisted of sri1l,
ill-ventilated rooms situated under the watchful
eyes of the eniployers. They htd to work for long
hours with little pay, usually from eight in the
morning to nine at night, vith half-ho1icays on
3undays and one full holiday at Deepvali. During
this long stretch from early in the morning till
night, only two hours were allotted for lunch and
tea, but it was only after the shop had closed
that thoy could have dinner. The wages were about
Rs.30 per month1 with annual increments ranging
from Rs.5 to I?s.lO. These working conditions were
only for Northern Indians. In contrast, the working
conditions were worst for Southern Indian shop-
assistants. They had to work from six in the
morning to eleven at night, with three half-hour
breaks far seals. Quarters and food provided were
generally poor, and the law wages ranging from
$7 to $35 were never paid on time. They had no
318
nc 1eipr
privr'
of th
tjme
Fowever as
investiatior. carjed out by the
result
trait
Times reDorters1 improvements were effected,
despite the oosition of the 1niar mcrcantile
communìty.
I
short, the vrorkin
and living conditiou
of Indian labourers in towns were worse than those
for their counterpart on the estates. Perhaps it
was because
the interests of urban(Indian)
workers did not receive from the Labour
Department the same care and attention
as those of estate labourers.03
To sum up, the Indians in Nalaya during
the first four decades of the twentieth century
did nt find themselves in a land overflowing with
milk and honey. As Rupert
nerson suggests:
The vast majority of them have taken no
apparent interest in Malayan affairs1
have risen no higher than their miserable
starting point, and have lived out their
brief Malaya lives within a radiva of
a few miles from tbe0çlingy "coolie lines"
in which they siept.°'
319
But after the war, there was a tremendous irprouement
i' living conditions and general welfare among the
Indians in Halaya.
iide range of aenìties are
available to the Indians today. They cari enjoy
better housing, and they come into closer contact
with the other races in the alayan plural society
through the help of newspaper, radio, cinema,
modern schools and more convenient means of
communication as bicyles and motor-cycles. In
short, the Indians are mixing well with the other
races so as to form a strong Malayan nation.
320
Tootno tes
M.II. WaKr, Indians in Mala, The ioduvayur
Yrintin
orks, 1937, n.k7. (Hereafter cited as
Wair, Indians in 1Ia1aya)
2
ibid. p.k7.
ibid. p.Li.9.
k
Victor Purcell, Malaya: Outline of a Colony,
Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 19k8, p.30.
2.B. Krishuan, Indians in Malaya: A Pageant of
Greater India, Singapore 1936, p.26.
6
H.I.S. Kanwar, !Tlndians in Malayau, Eastern
World, Vol.V, 1 (Dec. 1952) p.15.
V. Thompson, Minority Problems in Southeast
Asia, Institute of Pacific Pelations, California1
1955, p.6k.
8
Charles Gamba, "Malayan Labour, Merdeka and After",
India Quartery, Vol.XIV (1958) p.251.
J.O. Hertzler, The Crisis in World Population:
a Sociological Ecamination with Special
eference
to the Underdeve1ped Areae, University of Nebraska
32].
Press, 193G, p.225.
10
G. Mahan, "Indians in South-East si", Eastern
World, Vol.VI, 7 (July 1952) p.1k.
I. Davis, The Fopi1tion of India an
Pakistan,
New Jersey, 1951, p.10k.
12
Maurice Freedman, "The Growth of a Plural
Society in Ma1aya', Pacific Affairs, Vol.XXXIII,
No.2 (June 1960), p.159.
13
Virginia Thompson, Postiorteni on Malaya, New
York, 19k3, p.133.
Usha Mahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in
Burma and Malaya, The Institute of Pacific Relations,
New York, p.vi.
15
16
The Straits Times, March 25, 1937, p.10.
A.E. Neelakandha, Indiai Problems in Malaya: a
Brief Survy in nela tian to
nigation, Kuala Lumpu.r
1938, p.k17. (Hereafter Cited as Neelakandha,
Indian Problems in Malaya.)
17
ànnual Report of the United Planting Association
of Malaya for the year 1952.
322
J.8
A Social Survey of Sinpore:
Study of Some
sçcts of
*
.
Pre1iminry
ocia1 Coflditions in te
Municipal Area of Singapore, December 19k?, Singapore,
G.H. Kiat and Co., Ltd. p.109. (Hereafter citod as
A Social Survey of Siriapore.)
19
T.E. Smith, Pou1ation Growth in 4a1aya, Royal
Institute of International Affairs, Neii !ork 1952
p 8k.
20
21
A Social 3urvey of Singapore, p.125.
Irene Tinker, "Melayan
ections: Electoral
Pattern for Plural Societies"? The western Political
Quarterly, Vol.IX, (195G) p.260.
22
Charles Robequain, Malayajndonesia, Borneo
and the Philippines, New York 195k, p.123.
23 Roland Braddell, The Lights of Singpore, Nethuen
and Co. Ltd., 193k, p.73.
2k
25
The Malay Mail, October 23, 1962, p.8.
The story of how the god Ganesh got his elephant
head makes interesting reading. The Hindus say that
Ganesh is the son of the great god Zhìva and bis
3a3
wife, the
od-1ess rarvati. Ee was born while
hiva
ws away on a journey. 7hen Shiva caie back, he did
ot know that Gariesh was hi
son snd therefore he
cut his head off. After he knew the truth, he
promised Parvati that be would give Ganesh the head
of the first oDeat1rce
ho passed by.
e
et out
into the forest and niet Hati, the elephant. Thus
Canesh had an elephant's head. See T. Zinkin and
G.A. Gangal, An Indian Village in the Deccau,
Oxford University Press 1959, p.25-26.
26
2?
A.T. Edgar, Manual of Rubber P1antirg, 1958.
Xatherine Sim, 1'a1a
Landscape, Nichael 3oseph
Ltd., London, 1946, p.110.
28 GE Turner, "A Perak Coffee Planter's Report
on the Tamil Labourer in
a1aya in 1902" The Maly
Historical Journal, Vol.11, 1(July 1955) p.27.
O.C. Cox, Caste, Class and Race, New York, 1948.
30 G.P. Dartford, "Problems of Malay Education",
0ersea Education, Vol.XXTX (1957-198) p.33,
(Hexearter cited as Dartford, "Prob].em6 of Malal
32k
Educ&t1on".)
The Rt. Hon. J.G. A. Orîisby-Gore, fleport on a
Visit to Malaya1 Ceylon arn3 Java during the Year
1928, H.N. Stationery Cf.fice 1928, p.k5. (i!ereafter
cite1 as Orznsby-Gore, Report on a Visit to Malaya.)
32
Frederic Mason, The Schools of Malaya, Etern
Universities Press Ltd., Singapore 1959, p.13.
V. Linehan, Annual Report on Education in the
Straits Settlements and the !?.M.S. for the rear
1938, p.kk.
3k
F.G. Norten, Annual
port on Education in the
Straits Settlements for the year 1935.
H.R. Cheeseman, "Education in Malaya 19OO_l91TT,
The Malayan Historical Jouxnal, Vol.11, J.(July 1955)
p
Precis of 194O
Report on Education in the
raitsett1ement an4 F.M.S.., Singapore.
37
Labour in British Nalaya" International
Labour Review, Vol.XLII (July-December 19kO) p.75.
38
Ormsby-Gore,
port on a Visit to Malaya, p.55.
325
port of the cecutive of the General Labour
ConmitteeBritish alaya on Indian Labour an
Labourers, Kuala Lunipur, 1920 p.10.
K.A. Ì1ukundan,
nnual Peport of the Ajnt of
the Government of India in British Malaya for the
Year
l936
New Delhi 1937, p.18.
C.S. Venkatachar, Annual 1eçrt of the Agent of
the Government of India in British Malya for the
Year l97, New Delhi
k2
1939,
p.11.
ibid., p.10.
K.A. Mukundan, Annual Report of the Agent of the
Government of India in British Malaya for the_year
93k,
New Delhi
1935, p.13.
Dartford, "Problem of Malay Education",
p.3k.
K.A. Mukundan, Annual Report of the Agent of
Government of India in British Malaya for the
the
Year
New Delhi
1936, p.16.
C. Kondapi, Indian 0verseas
1838-19k9,
Indian
Council of World Affairs, New De1h, p.1k5.
C.S. Tenkatachar, Annual Report of the Agent
326
of the Government of India for the Year 1937, p.9.
k8
A. Keir, Annual ieport
o'i
thicatio
in th
Straits Settlerents and F.M.S. for the year 1937,
p 35.
F.J. Norten, Annua]. Report on Edncetion in the
Straits Settlements for the year 1935.
ICondapi, Indians Oversea
p.150.
to Zeng Ong, Education for Unity in Nalaya: an
Evaluation tf the Educational System of Malaya
with
pecia1 Reference to the Need for Unity in
its Plural Society, Penang 1952.
52
AB. Voules, "Selangor Inc3ian Immigration
iactment 188k", The Laws of Selangor, 1877-1899.
oceedirg
of the Federal Council, Federated
Malay States, 1910, Paper 11, Report of the Commission
pppinted to
guire into the Conditions of Indentured
Labour in the Federated Malay
States1
by C.W.C. Parr,
p.kk. (Hereafter cited as Parr, Report into the
Conditions of Indentured Labour.)
Report of Commission of InQuiry into the State
327
of Labour in the straits Settlements ac1 the Protected
Native State,s
-
1890, D»4.7.
bid., p.k8.
prt of the commission
into Certain Matters
pointed to Zncire
ffectjg the Health of Fstates
in the Federated Ma1ayStates, Thgether Jith a
Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Government,
Federated Malay States, Government Printing Office,
Singapore,
192k1
p,J&29. (Hereafter cited as Report
On Health of Estates, 192k.)
S. Srinivasa Sastri,
port on the Condition of
Indian'Labour in Malaya, Government of India Press,
1937, p.k. (Hereafter cited as Sastri, Report on
Indian Labour.)
58
ibid., p.10.
Report on Health of Estates, 1924, p.49.
60
TJbour in British Malaya in 1931" International
Labour Review, Vol.XXVIII (1933) p.kOl.
Report on Health of Estates, 192k, p.A27
62
ibid., p.Al3
6:
Parr, Report into the Conditions oI Indentured
Labour, p.f3.
J.V. Yield, "Some Observations on Vitamin A
Starvation anong Inmigrant Indians in Malaya",
Malyan Medical Journal, Vol.6 (J.931).
Report of the Committee on Nutrition in the
Colonial
pire, Cntd. 6051, 1939.
B. Cross, Journal of Malay Branch of the British
Medical Association, Septenber, 1940.
Major G. St. J
Orde Browne, Report on Labour
Conditions in Ceylon, Mauritius and Malaya, Eis
Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1943, p.102.
68
69
ibid., p.102.
N. Garigulee, Indians in the
pire Overseas,
New India Publishing House Limited, 1947, p.176.
70
Proc eedings and Peports of the Commission
Appointed to Inquire into Certain Matters Mfecti
the Good Government of the State of Selangr in
Relation to the Alleged Misuse and )1.buse cf
toddy in the Coast Districts of Selangor, F.LS.
329
Coernment Presa, 1917, p.xxiii. (Hereafter cited
as fleports on Toddy.)
71
The method of collecting toddy from coconut
pins flakes interesting reading. l3efore the flower
opens and is still enclosed in its sbe&tb
the
toddy-drawer bruises it with a small mallet until
the juice can be extracted. Then he cuts off the
end of the flower and ties it to an earthenware
pot hung to catch it. Every morning and every
evening, the toddy drawer climbs the palm and
empties the pot into a
oiird strung at his waist.
f ter leaving a few drops
f the juice in the pot
to sti.inulate fermentation of the new drawing, he
descends the tree and then empties the gourd into
buckets, which are then conveyed to the toddy
shops. See p.xxiii-p.xxvi of Reports on Todd.
72
Reports on Toddy, p.297.
ibid.
p.299i
eport of the committee Appointed to
uire
into the General Question of the Sale of ¶Ioddy
330
in the Federated Malay states an
to Draw Up Draft
i2ules for the Control of That Traffic, F.M..
Government Press,
Sastri,
76
eprt on Indian Labour, p.J.3.
Repprt of the
cecutive of the General Labour
Committee1 British Malaya on Indian Labour and
Labourers, Kuala Lupur 1920, p.2.
astr.t,
pprt on majan labour, p.13.
Nair, Indians in Malaya p.52
Item No. 8 of the Minutes of the Meeting of the
Planters' As600jation of Malaya Held on 26th April
19].I found in Reports ou Toddy, p.385.
8o
8i
Neelakandlia, Indian Problems in Malaya, p.60.
Sastri, Report on Indian Labour, p.19.
82
Thompson, Labour Problems in Southeast Asia1
New Haven, 1947, p.90.
ibid., p.85.
Rupert
erson, Malaysia 2 A Study in Direct an
Indirect Rule1 The MacMillan Company1 New York
19377
p.31.
331
CHAPTER VI
INDIAN ROLE IN TEE DEVELOPMENT CF Mt4.LAYA.
Indians contributed niuch towards the
development of territories overseas: not only of
Malaya but aleo many parts of the British :Dnpire.
In the words of Dr. N. Gangulee:
. it is not appreciated that
enterprising Indians have
made a substantial contribution by their
skill and. arduous labour. In the
plantations of Mauritius, British Guiana
and the West Indies, South Africa and
Ceylon, in building railways in East
Africa and exploiting the wealth of the
mines in Natal and other African territories,
in the lumber campa of British Colunthia
in all these pioneering
and Malaya
enterprises they bave provided the diverse
economic needs at a time when no other
supplies of labour were available.1
In East Africa and Zanzibar, Indian achievement had
niade its name, as stated by Gir John Kirk, in 1909:
It was entirely through being in possession
of the influence of these Indian merchants
that we were enabled to build up the
influence that eventually resulted in
our position.2
In Kenya and Uganda, the economic contribution of
332
Indian professional and commercial classes was
notable. Winston Churchill summed up the position
thu s:
It is the Indian trader, who penetrating
and maintaining himself in all sorts of
places to which no white man could go,
or in which no white man could earn a
living, has more than anyone else developed
the early beginnings cf trade and opened
up the first slender means of communication.
In
fact1
it was Indian labour that was mainly
responsible for building the Kenya and Uganda
Railway!
Not only East Africa, but also British
Guiana, Mauritius and Fiji owed much to Indian
labour and enterprise. Trinidad too was indebted
to Indian immigration for the growth cl her sugar
industry. Indian labour was also essential to the
development of Natal, as declared by the NATAL
NCURY, a journal of the European planters:
Had it not been for the coolie labour,
we should not hear of the coffee
plantations springing up on all
i antis ..........
333
Even the ex-Prime Minister of Natal, Sir Leigh
Hulett, acknowledged that Durban was entirely
built up by the Indian population.5
Now, what can be said about the
contribution of Indian labour and enterprise to
the development of Malaya?
As early as the first half of the
nineteenth century, Indian labour, in the form of
convict labour, played a
part in the development
of Malaya. During the period when Singapore,
Malacca and Penang served as the "Sydneys of
India"6, the convicts helped to build roads,
cathedrals and churches. The work done by these
convicts to build up the Straits Settlements has
been described in great detail by the soldierauthor, Major J.F.A. McNair in his book.7 A
writer in the Singapore Sunday Times has paid
tribute to the work accomplished by the Indian
convicts in the following manner:
wring souls of a bygone day, men of
33Lf
another clime sojourning here against
their will, those Indian convicts hare
left au indelible mark on Singapore.°
This praise was reiterated by Mr, T. Church, the
Resident Councillor of Singapore, when he wrote
to the Governor of the Straits
ettlemeuts in
1850:
will show how much the
community are indebted to the con-ict
body for the cleanliness of the streets
in town, and the extensive and admirable
roada in the country, which elicit the
praise and even the astonishment of
sojourners from the continent of India
and the Colonies.9
Many of the architectural works in
Singapore would not bave been accomplished without
resort to convict labour1 for labour in those days
was expensive and scarce. The Indian convicts were
engaged in the opening up of Singapore: filling
up swamps, blasting rocks, erection of sea and
river walls, bridges, viaduc ta and tunnels, and
roads, and in reclaiming plots of land from the
sea. The following were all due to Indian convict
labour: North and South Bridge Roads, Serangoon,
335
3edok and Thomson Roads, the road leading to the
top of Mount Faber, Bukit Tiriiah Road which enabled
land transport between Johore and Singapore. Indian
convict labour was used to widen and improve the
Bukit Timab Canal, and to drain the lowlands nearby
in order to render them suitable for the cultivation
of vegetables. The convicts also built light houses
the first one which was completed by September
1851, was completely built by convict labour. It
was big'ly commended by the Singapore Free Press,
as an edifice worthy of the citizens' pride,10 Most
of the materials used were fashioned by the convicts'
hands. The Stamford Raffles Light House was built
by free labour, but many convicts were called in
to help as stone cutters, blasters and manual workers.
The Indian convicts sank the deep wells at Fort
Canning, and filled up the former mud flat, thus
building the present Raffles Place with the soil
obtained from the surroundings of Hindu Temple and
from Pearls Hìll.
336
The convicts were responsible for building
their own prison, then located at Bras Basab Road,'
and also the City Gaol at Pearl's Hill, the court
house, General Hospital, public offices, lunatic
asylum, pauper hospital and several other public
buildings. Indeed so many architectural structures
owed their origin to these convicts that it is no
wonder that George Netto writes:
the history of Indian convicts
was the history of the Public Works
Department of Singapore.11
The Mariamman Temple in South Bridge Road was
built by the convicts in 1828. The living testimony
of the skill and workmanship of the
onvicts is
undoubtedly St. Andrewts Cathedral. Work on the
church was started in March 1856, but it was only
until October i86i that the Cathedral was opened.12
The construction plans were drawn by the convicts,
who included three draughtsmen. At first, the
estimated cost of the Cathedral vas Rs.120,932,13
but the use of convict labour reduced it to
337
Rs.k7,9].6. The Oonvicts manufactured the bricks,
tiles, and much of the lime and. cement required,
at the Government kiins located at Seragoon Road.
Such was the skill of these convicts that the
Cathedral was acclaimed as TT05 of the first
specimens of ecclesiastical architecture in the
East."
Another remarkable example of the
workmanship and industry of the convicts is the
present Government House, the work of which was
started in 1868 and was completed in the following
year. Most of the work was carried out by convict
labour, but at times, free labour was called in
to assist in the flooring of the building.
The Indian convicts also helped to build
up the economy of Malaya by being employed inside
the prison wa11, in the making of coir, ropes
and flags. They contributed to the development of
the country by taking up roles as tailors, printers,
weavers, spinners and photographers.
is a matter of fact, all material and
338
afl. labour for the execution of any
public work required by the Government
15
were executed by these convicts .......
These convicts specialized in the manufacture of
walking sticks, known as "Penang lawyers" which
were exported to Etirope and America. These sticks
were made from palms known by the Malaya as "Pias
tikoos" and by botanists as the "Licuala acuti1ida"6
When the convicts were released, they were absorbed
by the local population, arid here again, they helped
to develop Malaya in the various occupations and
trades they took up as means of livelihood. In
October 1884, the Sin.apore Free Press paid tribute
to these early builders of Malaya thus:
To this day, many of the released convicts
are living in Singapore, as cart-owners,
milk-sellers, road contractors and so on.
Many of them are comfortably off, but are
growing fewer year by year, and their
places1ill never be filled by that class
again.
'
It is interesting to riote that these
convicts worked under the supervision of warders
chosen from among themselves. In fact, they were
339
11prisoners their own warders.T1 This system of
convict warders was first attempted in Singapore;
and as there were many Convicts, many were selected
to be warders in the proportion of one warder to
every 20 convicts. These convicts were given
rations, clothing and blankets: each warder received
a monthly wage of
3, while every convict was given
a monthly wage of 50 cents. This similar system was
introduced into Malacca. It is surprising that so
much could have been accomplished by these Indian
convicts. Although they were not the cream of the
society from which they came, yet they were not
hardened criminals. Perhaps the law was very severe
in the early days, and many would fall afoul of the
law by acts which would not be considered as offeiaces
at the present time. The convicts were allowed great
freedom in return for their co-operation to work
for the development of their country. They were
permitted to go into town, to buy anything they
liked. Once during the Chinese riots of 165k,
which lasted for over a week, the convicts were
dispatched into the jungle, to follow the rioters
and disperse them. After the mission was accomplished,
the convicts returned to their prisons with noue
missing. Vhile serving their sentence in prison,
the convicts usually amassed large sums of money.
IThen they became free men, they could afford to
settle down as cattle-keepers, and owners of bullockcarts, carriages and horses for hire.
It has always been the boast of the Chinese
that with their hard work, thrift and enterprise
they have made Malaya.18 'Jhule the role of the Chinese
in the development of Malaya was significant, yet
we cannot entirely ignore the role of the Indians
in building up a modern Malaya. It is true that the
Chinese were the pioneers in the tin-mining industry;
that the internal trade, wholesale and retail, wa
in their bands and also the Chinese bad captured
an important aliare of the trade between Malaya and
nearby countries.19 In fact t)ae.Chinese had assumed
an
strangleholdt on Malaya.20 Yet
Dr. N.K. Menen makes the following statement about
the Indian role in the development of Malaya:
7hen we grow enthusiastic about our great
U.s. Dollar-producing rubber industry,
let us remember with sympathy and gratitude
the share of the humble Indiau worker in
this aspect of M.laya's prosperity and
iii.
Indeed, the Indian labourers in Malaya
have often been described as t'the creators of Malaya's
potential rubber wealth"22, and a member of the
Legislative Council, Mr. John Mitchell referred to
these sons of' toil as "the life blood of the Colony.t123
What had the Indian labourers done to deserve
this praise?
During the end of the nineteenth and the
first few decades of the twentieth centuries Malaya
as a whole exhibited the characteristics of a
plural economy where different racial groups
exercised different economic functions.
t the top
of the economic pyramid were the British ruling
class, who exercised a monopoly of political power,
32
and controlled the important levers of its economic
machinery.2 Next came the Chinese who constituted
the urban middle-class and workers, sprinkled with
powerful capitalists. Then came the Indians who by
and large constituted the bulk of the plantation
laboure The Ma].ays had remained small-holders or
fishermen and had been economically isolated from
the above alien roups In this plural economy,
the British had given ordered government as well
as
capital7
the Chinese had contributed entrepreneurship.
What had the Indians contributed to the development
of modern Malaya?
This can best be answered by a
survey at the rubber industry of Malayas Rubber and
tin have been and are the mainstay of Malaya's
economy, and her prosperity
has been intimately
linked up with these two comrnodities25 Even today,
the economy of the country balances like a pyramid
iT
inverted on American and European purchases of tbem.fl26
Rubber seedlings had been sent from Iew to Singapore
in 1877,27
but it was until the coming of the motor
343
ae at the beginning of the twentieth century that
the rubber industry was entrenched in Nalayan
economy. By 19L5, rubber exports amounted to
193,000,000 while tin exports provided t6i,000,00o
out of a total export value of
l62,O0O,0o0,28 prom
this time onwards, rubber export value exceeded t1t
of tin. In 192, the export of rubber for the Federated
Malay States was valued at £32,000,000, and for the
whole of Malaya, at £87,000,000. In the same year,
tin and tin ore exports were valued at £11,800,000
for the Federated Malay States and £20,400,000 for
al]. Malaya.
29
Thus, the export of rubber grew from
nothing to become the dominating export of Malaya,
three or four times as important as the old tin
had been.
The successful introduction of the great
rubber-growing industry into Malaya was due to a
conibination of several factors, in which Indian
labour played an important role. The initiation
and establishment of this industry depended upon
3Lfk
a diverse company of men and institutions: scientists
and the official research sttions where ssteratic
scientific inquiry was conducted
civil servants
of an a].ert and patient character, just like "rubber
Ridley,"30 adventurous business men, and tell-established
merchant firms possessing connections with highly
organized capital market at home. Of course, the
primary factor was the framework of an ordered society
within which individuals could go about their business.
All these needs were supplied by the capitalists in
due course. But all these assets would be useless
if not accompanied by ari ample supply of cheap 1abour
The expanding rubber plantations called for labour,
and the call was answered by the movement of Indian
labourers from the densely populated regions of South
India. Whether it is true or not that the Indiana
came to Nalaya with the intention of seeking the
means of subsistence is not one that enters here.
But they found their way to Nalaya, and helped to
turn 1alaya into a prosperouc. country dependent on
3+5
rubber by contributing their share in ;ork and
capital.31 However, to say that the rubber industry
was a product of Indian labour is a facile but
inadequate statement. Yet it is true that one of
the reasons why the various attentpts of the early
planters to grow siices, gambier, sugar-cane and.
coffee in various parts of the Straits Settlements,
met with little success lay in the shortage of labour.
From the start, the Nalays refused to work on
plantations. Besides, it was an empty land that
the British occupied when British control was extended
to Malaya.32 Capital, energy and labour had to be
recruited from outside. Indeed, one of the reasons
which made the rubber industry in South America lag
behind the Malayan rubber industry was the shortage
of labour. In the words of G.C. Allen and Audrey
G Donni thorns:
In the development of an estate industry
st Asia had every advantage over
South
South America. Transport was not as
formidable a problem as it Was in the
3k6
jungles of Brazil, and the shortage of
labour, which impeded the growth of
the South American industry, could be
overcome by drawing on the densely
populated areas of South India, Java
and China.33
After 1900, foreign capital began to
be poured into Malaya in order to develop the
rubber and the tin industries. In the words of
Swet teriham:
Up to the year 1900 it may be fairly
said that the prosperity of the Malay
States was due to the enterprise and
labour of the Chinese .. ........ the
progress made in development was due
to local effort and Asiatic capital;
since that dateforeign
mainly
British
capital, energy and
skill, have cbnged the face of the
country and increased the revenues
of the States to astonishing figures.'
But foreign capital would not bave changed the
face of Malaya without the supply for cheap Indian
labour to back it. In short, Indian labour became
the complement of foreign capital and enterprise
in the development of the country. It is no wonder
that Dr. LA. Mills suggests:
7ithout Indian and above all Chinese labour,
the economic develo:pment of Malaya would
have been impossible.35
During the early years of the expansion of the rubber
industry in Malaya, it was Indian labour that helped
to clear jungles and swamps and plant rubber seedlings
in their piace.6 In the words of the Agent of the
Government of India in Malaya, C.S. Venkatacher:
The situation of Malaya with respect to
labour is unique in that the two key
industries, tin and rubber which represent
a predominant share of the wealth of the
country, are almost entirely dependent
on irnmigran.t labour. The mining industry
is sustained entirely by Chinese labour
just as the rubber plantations are
organized on the basis of predominantly
South Indian labour force .......... The
Malay unskilled labour is practically
non-existent and it is difficult to
imagine how the industry as well as
certain essential public services in
Malaya could be carried on without the
docile and
sciplined gangs of Indian
labourers. W?!
Thus it was partly (if not mainly) through
cheap Indian labour that the rubber industry became
entrenched in the economy of Malaya, so that today,
Malaya is second only to Indonesia in the output of
3L
natural rubber.8 The extent of the value of rubber
to Malaya may be indicated by the fact that in 1953
agriculture, forestry and mining co'itributed about
k6% of the Malayan national income, and that rubber
alone contributed about 13%, while tin about
Moreover rubber accounted for 60% of Malaya's domestic
exports in 1953, while tin accounted for about
25.
01 the two, rubber is of much the greater importance
to the economy: it occupies about 65
*
cultivated area of Malaya.
ko
of the entire
In the words of Guy
Win t,
.......... rubber meant wealth, and wealth
in the hands of e. goverpment means, or
can mean moderniation."
It was rubber which acted "like a magician's wand
waved over Malaya" and added quickly to the wealth
of the country, especially during the first decade
of the twentieth century1
o that there was a
surplus in the revenue of the government. These
revenue surpluses were usually used to build and
maintain roads, railways and water supplies, and
for other forms of develoDment throubtout Malaya.
Hospitals and schools were built. T7ith the revenue
derived from rubber,
....... ... a particularly unhealthy part
of the tropics had been made one of the
healthiest by lavish government expenditure
and unremitting effort.42
In the four British protected States of Malaya in
187k, there was not a single post-office1 but by
190k, the postal services set up dealt with ten
million covers, and 2,000 miles of telegraph wires
were maintained.k3 Over 2,kOO miles of good roads
and 340 miles of railway were built by 190k. 0f
course, this spectacular development of the country
cannot be wholly attributed to the revenue brought
in by rubber, but at least some credit is due to
this industry, and to the humble Indian labourers
who toiled on the rubber plantations. Indeed it is
true to say that the rubber industry was
responsible for opening up the country
and reclaiming vast areas from the jungle
for cultivation. It has transformed the
States from a little explored region to
3o
one of the best supplied with means
communication .......... in the East.
Rubber has been important because it
enabled Singapore to maintain and even increase
the value of its entrepot trade. Singapore had
become the natural centre for collecting and
grading various spices, forest products and other
new materials, that is, what were formerly known
as the Straits produce. In addition1 tea, silks
and cssia were imported from China, while sugar,
rice, ivory and salt were imported from Thailand
and Indo-China. These commodities were then
re-exported to the West, from which came manufactured
goods and foodstuffs to be re-distributed again to
the neighbouring countries. But when Eong Kong was
founded in 18k],, it challenged the position of
Singapore in South-East Asia. Besides, it provided
a better entrepot for the trade of South China,
and a better port-of-call for ehips bringing goods
from and to Europe. Moreover, the direct shipment
35-,-
of goods to Europe from ports in Indo-China and the
Dutch East Indies had curtailed much of the entrepot
trade which was once in Singapore's hands.
However,
the development of the rubber industry as well as
tin mining compensated for the contraction of
Singapore's field of entmpot trade, for they added
far more to her profits. Partly because there was
the abundant supp3.y of immigrant labour, Malaya was
able to specialize in the production of rubber and
tin more than any other line of activity. Singapore
and Penang became important centres of rubber milling
and tin smelting
serving Malaya and other neighbouring
countries. The specialization in rubber and tin has
raised the standard of living in Malaya. To use the
words of TJI. Silcock:
Our (Malayan) national income per head
of population is, in money terms, higher
than those of other Asian countries,
with the exception of Israel. Even
making allowances for differences in
the cost of living, the real income
per head in Malaya is substantially higher4
than in most of the other Asian countries.
352
In the process of building Malaya, mamy
Indians lost their lives. It is true that they
were in Malaya because they were in search of the
means of subsistence, yet it is also true that a
great number of theni fell victims to the scourge
of malaria, and many succumbed to dysentery through
drinking bad water, while many fell prey to the
animals that roamed in the jungles in the early
days. The Senior Surgeon, Mr. C.J. Smith, had said
that even in hospitals in the early days, the Indian
labourers T?djed like flies." How many hospitals were
being built in the early days? Indeed it has been
well said:
Modern Malaya is built on coolie bones.
It was not only Indian labour that
contributed to the growth of Malaya.
ducated Indian
immigrants also assisted in the development of the
country. Sir George Maxwell, the former Chief
Secretary pithily referred to the services of this
class of Indiane thus:
Few people suffiient1y bothered about
the subiect to realise what the people
of India and Ceylon did in the early
days of the country. Then British
officers came into the country they
numbered four or five in one state, and.
perhaps three or four in another, but
they had devoted staffs mainly composed
of the people of India and Ceylon. At
that time the Malays did not know the
English language, and were therefore
unable to take their share in the
administration of the Government. The
devoted services of the people from
India and Ceylon would never be forgotten.
... They did not know the customs
of the people of the country but they
were sent to the wilds to do their work
and they did it with unswerving loyalty.
The Nalays were coming in and taking
their places in the Government services,
but everyone would always be grateful
to the people of India and Ceylon for
being the pioneers of the work of those
days. Their services would never be
forgotten and the Government would always
give a helping hand to their Sons and
grandsons, and this only as a small measure
of the gratitude theQ owed to the people
of India and Ceylon.
This tribute to the work of the Indians in the
development of Malaya is reiterated by Sir Samuel
Wilson, the Under-Secretary of State for the colonies,
who was sent by the Colonia.l Office to Malaya during
351f.
November-December 1932 for the purpose of discussing
decentralization of certain public services in the
Federated Malay States with the }agh ommissiouer
No one will deny the important
part the non-Malays,who have no.de Malaya
their home, bave played in its development,
and the share they are destined to take
in helpin.g its future progress .......
The Nattukottai Chettiars also played a
role in the development of Malaya. Their role in
the country, as in Burma, was as "purveyors of
rural credit."
The Chettiars usually predominated
as money-lenders, pawn-brokers and money-changers
throughout Malaya. They usually formed the capitalist
class among the Indian. community,52 and some of the
mines, plantations and busine6ses set up by Chinese
and other Asiatics were financed by them. They would
provide credit facilities to the smalibolder and
retail trader under circumstances which banks and
other financiers would hesitate to advance. This
was due to their business competence which was
well-known. They acquired
A
knowledge, which the
7esterrers could not hope to get
of the credit-worthiness
of the small Chinese and Indian traders.
.s a result
they became the channel by which 7estern bankinp
resources were poured into the current of Asian
Small Asian traders, artisans and tin-miners
obtained most of the credit they required from the
Che ttiars by writing promissory notes or by mortgaging
their crops. The Chettiars in. turn either discounted
these notes with the Western banks or by obtaining
overdrafts on the security of bills or title-deeds
to property. Thus the Chettiars assumed the role of
middle-men between the small traders and the Western
banks. In this way, they held a key position in
business transactions. R.B.ICrishnan says:
More than one captain of industry in the
rich and powerful Chinese community owe
their early start in business to the
ready and willg assistance extended by
the Chettiars.
it is quite true that many wealthy Chinese magnates
owed a great debt to these Ohettiars, for the
latter extended initial capital to them, to enable
356
them to start their business in tin and rubber.55
The interests chargea by the Chettiars would amount
to 1% to 3% per fllensem.'6 This was in sharp contrast
to that deman.ded by the Sikhs and Patbans who also
took up money-lending as a side-line in addition
to their full-time occupation as policemen and.
watchmen. The rates of interests demanded by them
were exorbitant, ranging from 10 to 20% per ntensem.
0f course, the unpopularity of the Indian money-lender
is proverbial, although more often than not he is a
boon to many of the small traders who come to hini
for aid. The activities of the Indian money-lenders
had been curbed to a certain extent by the Money-lending
Ordinance of 1951, brought in by the Federal Legislative
Council.
The Che ttiars came from Devakottai,
Karaikudi, Puduvayal, Itottayoor, Pallatboor and
Kanadukatban in the Ramnad District, and also from
the state of Pudukotta. They are usually found
flOWaday8 in the large towns in Nalaya, a
Ipob,
2
-J
Singapore, Malacca, Kuala Lumpu.r arid Penang. Whether
the Chettiars should use their nioney to beriefit the
Indian labourers instead of the other communities
is a matter of opinion.
ut it is interesting to
note that John Thivy, the Representative of the
Government of India, addressing the Nattukkottai
Chettiars of Malaya at a gathering in Kuala Lumpur
in 19k7, remonstrated thus:
The Chettiar community while aiding others'
enterprises to make a land mark in this
country, has not attempted to go outside
this particular money-lending and banking
activities. This is not progress. You
should not have just one way of carrying
on your profession in life. You are blessed
with money arid wealth. You must use your
own ingenuity, your own initiative, your
own man-power to produce something good,
something useful for a wider circle.57
India role in the development of Malaya
may also be measured by the magnitude of Indian
investment in Malaya. An official Indian publication
estimated in 1950 the investment to be between 170
and 250 million rupees.8 Another estimate gives
a lower figure (probably an underestimate) which is
35
US36 million or Mlo8.5 million. This represented
about 25 per cent of the total private investment
fund in Malaya. S. Nanjundan59 cives the investment
as between Rs,17 crores and Rs.25 crores160 while
C. Kondapi estimates the Indian investment to be
at Rs.20 crorea.61 The highest estimate is that
made by LB. Kriehnan, which is "four hundred
millions of dollars.'1 Most of this fund was invested
by the small Che ttiar group, who was influential in
business, trade and banking circles, and who owned
most of the rubber estates belonging to Indians.
This Chettiar ownership of 175,000 acres of rubber
plantations was estimated to be worth
s.l0 crores.62
Besides the Nattukottai Chettiars, there
were also merchante, both North Indians and South
Indiaus who contributed to the development of Malaya.
These merchants included big import and export traders
at the top to the petty hawkers and street vendors
at the bottom. In short, the Indian trading community
consisted of Chettiars, Gujeratie, Siz'idbis, South
359
Indian Mos1em
and a few Sikhs.
Before the First
7orld 7ar, these Indian merchants were engaged iii
the import of cotton yarn, gunny bags and curry
spices, and in the export of general agricultura].
produce. In the thirties, the Indian nerchants
imported Japanese goods, especially textiles into
Malaya. In the fifties, the Indian merchants
succeeded to capture a large proportion of the
textile import trade of Malaya. By that time Indian
activities were not only confined to textiles alone,
but also included a variety of goods, such as
bicycles and paper, leather goods, electrical goods
and building naterials.
The role of Indians in the development
of Malaya was closely associated with the economic
activities assumed by the Indians in the country:
they involved specialized labour, clerical and
mercantile skills which were usually wage remunerative
as opposed to agricultural occupations of the Indians
in India.
360
Table C.°
Cccppational distribution of Indians
in !alaya, 1931.
Males
Agricultural pursuits
Females
Total
153,408
69,k3J.
222,839
Commercia], pursuits
29,596
618
3O,21+
Industry
18,280
1,135
19,Lf15
133,898
11,84.5
)Jf5,7k3
85,811.6
119,952
205,798
4.21,028
202,981
624,009
Miscellaneous, including
Administrative, personal
or professional service
Non-productive occupations
Total
In the Federation, about 8
per cent of
the Indians engaged in agricultural occupations
worked at rubber, coconut and oil-palm cultivation
or stock-rearing. In Singapore as well as in the
Federation, public employment of Indians was
significant. Eut it was and is, in the cultivation
of rubber that the majority of Indians gained their
livelihood. In the words of W.J. Kinton:
On the whole, the Indian especially the
South Indian (Tamil) played the part
of the man with the hoe or at best the
361
man with the tapping knife.
On
uropean owned and operated estates1 the Indians
comprised 80% of the labour force.
ven today, the
Indian estate labour force can be divided into
three large groups: the field force, the factory
force and the clerical force.
includes the followiri.
The field force
- managerial class,
tapper arid other field labour. The managerial class
includes the labour foremen, kanganies or niandors
who usually act as the liaison between the planter
and the labourer, and are in charge of the 1tline&'.
They are expected to uphold peace and order
throughout the estate. The tappers are the most
skilled of the rubber workers and receive the highest
wages. In the Census of 194-7, 39,000 tappers were
men out of a total of 69,000, about 57 per cent.6
In 194-7, rubber factory workers numbered something
aver 7,000. The wages of factory workers were usually
as high as that for tappers. These factory bands were
responsible for ooxrerting the tapped latex into
362
sheet rubber either for export or for further
processing. .Veecìing is most important in the first
six years of the life of the rubber tree. The
weeders were generally ola people1 men and women
and children1 and sometimes weeding was carried
out by tappers when they were required to work a
ful]. n-hour day, as during the Depression years
of the 1930's. The few Indian clerical workers
on the estates were generally literate, and were
usually indigenous. Their salaries were generally
lower than the field and factory workers, although
they too received the benefits of free housing and
other services.
In other agricultura], occupations the
Indians were less numerous. In 19k?, there were
9,500 Indians in coconut cikitivation; in oil-palm
cultivation there were 6,200 Indians, while Indian
truck farmers numbered 3,LlO0, livestock raisers
2,600 and forestry workers 133. In the other
primary productive occupations such as fishing,
363
mining and forestry, the Indians numbered about
8,OL*Od. Among the Indians engaged in agricultural
pursuits, one point merits attention: the lack
of subsistence occupations, in contrast to their
importance in the home communities in India.68
Evidence proved that the Indiane would take up
subsistence agriculture if permitted to do so.
Eut they were seldom provided with suitable land
for subsistence cultivation. Rather they bad been
reserved for rubber, or for some other commercial
crop or for Malay subsistence farming.
owever,
several small farming settlements were set
up for
Indians: at Bagan-Serai, Peraic and in Chua, Negri.
8emblan.
69
Apart from being engaged in agricultural
pursuits, about 5% of the gainfully employed Indians
in 19k7 were involved in secondary productive pursuits
as semiskilled and unskilled workers. Only a sma].l
proportion of Indians was owners or managers, in
sharp contrast to the Chinese in the same fields
36k
of employment. The largest group of industrially
employed Indians was to be found in the category
of occupations associated with metal-working. In
19k7, about one-third of
he employed Indians in
the Federation was engaged in tertiary productive
occupations. In general, the service and trade
occupations were filled up by North Indians, but
also there were Moslems from the Marakkayar
community of Madras and Chettiars. The Sikhs and
Pathans usually filled the ranks of policemen and
watchmen, and performed many of the other public
service functions. In the police, the Indians
figured next to the Malays in numbers. The statistics
according to the 193]. figures were: 1,938 Malaysians,
l,k31 Indians and 299 Chinese in the Straits Settlements;
2,572 Malaysians1 2,011 Indians and 158 Chinese in
the Federated Malay States.7° The Indians who were
engaged in tertiary occupations were usually found
in the towns and cities of Malaya, especially in
Singapore. A single South Indian group, the Malayali,
365
was characteristically associated with seniì-silled
and unskilled labour in the towns, in the same way
as the Tamils were usually found on estates.
Yinally, it is interesting to see whether
the Indians had harmed the position of the Malays
in assuming their economic roles in the country.
If it were true that the economic activities of the
Indians were detrimental to the interests of the
Malays, then it follows that the Chinese economic
roles were even more detrimental to the Malaya. In
the words of L.A. Mills:
Politically the Malaya were pushed out
of their own house onto the doorstep.
Economically they suffered the saine
fate at the bands of the Chinese. In
their own words they used to be poor
men in a poor country, and now they
were poor men in a rich country.
It is difficult t
see how the Indian economic
activitieE had been detrimental to the Malays, when
"a typical stall-shop in every Malay village belonged
to a Chinese, not to an Indian",172 when the Chinese
established a stranglehold on Malaya economically
36
and when the Malays bad been protected by a so-called
pro-Malay policy of the colonial authorities. The
British government felt that the Malays should not
be pushed into the background in their own country.
Since they were the "people of the country", they
were granted special privileges. Reserves of suitable
land were made to these trae TI505 of the soil";73
rice-growing was mainly confined to them. Special
attention was paid to their education. Before World
War II, the Malayan Administrative Service
was
specially created for Malays, and non-Malaya were
barred from it. Throughout the nineteenth Century,
it was the Chinese who were foremost in seizing
the opportunities created by the establishment of
British rule, and while the British held the Malayan
cow the Chinese milked it.75 As immigrants, the
Chinese were exceedingly ¿nere tic and were ready
to seize opportunities whenever they were
create.6
There were too many Chinese peasants who
landed in singapore with nothing but the
ended their
clothes on their backs a
careers as millionaires.t
367
But vñat had the Indians obtained in return.
for helping to develop Malaya? To quote the words
of another writer:
Like Burma Malaya was developed partly
with the help of Indian labour and capital,
but the common Indian labourer was not
the richer for it. The profits were
drained away eitheto the United Kingdom,
or by the Chinese.
The large majority of Indian labourers remained
poor and there were very few cases of Indians becoming
millionaires in Malaya. Against this it can be argued
that the majority of Indian immigrants to Malaya
came with the predominant idea of seeking their daily
bread. But was this not the case with the Chinese?
Yet so many of them had made good in Malaya. While
the Indians worked for the benefit of others, the
profits earned by the Chinese remained in their own
pockets.79 Then how can it be said that Indian
economic activities had harmed the position of
the Malays?
368
Footnotes
N. Gangu].ee, Indians in the
npire
erseas, The
New India Publishing Eouse, Ltd. 19Lf7, p.22,
(flereaf ter cited as Gangulee, Indians.)
ibid., p.28.
7inston Churchill, My African Journey, london,
Haddir, 1908, p.Zf9,
k
Gangulee, Indians, p.28.
Lankasundarain, 'Internationa1 Aspects of Indian
igration'T, Asiatic Review, 1931, April7 p.290.
i.e. convict stations. Sj.nce 1787, Beucoolen in
&imatra served as a penal settlement for convicts
from India. But Bencoolen was transferred t
the
E'utch in 1825, and hence from 1825, Singapore,
Malacca and Penang served as convict stations
until 1873, when the convicts were transferred to
the Andaman Islands.
J.F.A. MeNair, Prisoners Their Own Warders,
Archibald Constable & Co., vestminister, 1899.
(ereafter cited as McNair, Prisoners.)
3E9
8
Krishnan, Indians in Malaia: A Pageant of
Greater India, The Malaan Publishers, Singapore,
1936. p.15. (Hereafter cited as Kriehnan, Indians.)
ii.,
10
.
George Netto, Indians in Malaya: Historical
Facts and FiRures, Singapore, 1961, p.17. (Hereafter
cited as Netto1 Indians.)
ibid. p.16.
12
13
1k
*
ibid. p.18.
(rishrian, Indians, p.l7.
McNa:i.r, Prisoners, p.1O-11.
ibid., p.91.
16
17
18
Netto, Indians, p.l5.
.
-
Krishnan, Indians,
.lOi.
Anry Vandenbosoli, "The Chinese and Hindu ProblemeTi,
Current History, August 1952, p.ßO-84.
19 G.C. Allen & Audrey Donuithorne, Western Enterprise
in Indonesia and Na1a, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1957, p.59. (Hereafter cited as Allen and
Donnithcrne, Western Enterprise)
370
20
v Purcell, "The Influence of
acial Minoritie&',
lYationalism and Projress in Free Asia, F.'1. Thayer
(ed.), baltimore 1956, p.2k1.
21
1)r. N.K. Menan, "Indiau Immigration in Malaya",
Interpreters' Annual 19k8.-1949, p.37Lf2.
22
23
Krislinan, Indians, p.20.
ibid.1 p.20.
2k
Raja Ratnam, "Malaya: A Nationalism in the
Making", Asian
orizon, Vol.3, No.1 (Vlinter 1950-51)
p.25.
25
Nanjundan, "ECOnOmiC Development of Malaya",
India
uarter1y, Vol.VIII, No.3, July-September 1952,
p.289.
26
E.H.G. Dobby, TiMalayRn Pcspect", Pacific Affairs,
Vo].XXIII, k(Deceruber 1950) p.397.
27
R.0. Jenkins, "Rubber: Introduction and
cpansion
with Special Reference to Malaya'1, The Planter,
February and March, 1955.
28
Dun.-jen Li, British Malaya, An Economic Analysis,
New York1 1955,
.38.
37J
29
30
Mr. H.N. Ridley, the head of the Botanical
Gardens at Singapore, earnod hi!nself this soubriqiiet
by his tireless efforts to persuade the sceptical
planters to take up the new crop. See Song 0n
Siang,
Oe Hundred Years of the Chinese in Singapore1 p.k-f9,
and H.N. Ridley, "How Rubber Started in rlalaya",
Young Malayens, 6 February 1952, p.lfk.
31
E. Dennery, Asiats Teeming Millions: and Its
Problents for the ?est, 1931, Jonathan Capo, London1
p 200.
32
Guy Wint, The british in Asia, Institute of
Pacific Relations, New York, 195k, p.l07.(ereaf ter
cited as Wint, The British in Asia.)
Allen & Donnithorne, Western Enterprise, p.117.
Sir Frank Swettenhain, British Malaya, London,
George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1955, p.351.
Dr. L.A. Mills, Malaya: A Political & Econoniic
Appraisal, University of Minnesota Press, Ninxieapolis,
1958, p.13.
372
S. Nanjundan, Indians in Malayan Economy, New
Delhi, Government of India Press1 1951, p.11.
C.S. Venkatachar, Annual Report of the Agent of
the Government of India in British Mala7a for the
yar 1937, Delhi, Manager of Publications, 1939,
p.3.
38
The Economic Development of Malaya, Report of
a Mission organised by the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development at the recuest of
the Governments of the Federation of Malaya, the
Crown Colony of Singpore and the United Kingdom,
The Johns Hokins Press, Baltimore, 1955, p.1f.
14m Tay Bob, Problems of the Malayan Economy,
Donald Moore Singapore 1956, p.1, Background to Malaya
Series, No.10. (Hereafter cited as Beh, Malayan
Economy.)
ko
See TIH. Silcock's The Economy of Malaya, Donald
Honre, Background to Malaya Series, No.2, Singapore,
1956, p.12. He warns us not to describe the Halayan
econoty as being supported by rubber and tin as if
373
these \7ere more or less eaually important, with
no other products of even similar siCnuficance.
Of course rubber is of great importance, whether
we count the numbers employed
the contribution
to national income, the contribution to Government
revenue, the effect on the balance of payments or
the profits earned for investors. But this
overwhelming importance of rubber in Malayan
economy should riot obscure the importance of other
lines of economic activity which contribute in
total far more to the national income than do the
rubber and tin industries directly. Refer to
Appendix D. (Hereafter cited as Silcocks, The
Economy of Mala.)
Wint, The British in Asia, p.112.
k2
Dr. L.. 4ilLs, op. cit.p.9.
D.G.E. Hall, A History of South-East Asia,
MacMillan & Co. Ltd. London, p.k85.
Dr. L.A. Mills, op. cit. p.22.
Silcocks, The Economy of Malaya, p.8.
37k
Boh, Malayan Bcononiy, p.3.
?!int, The British in Asia, p.11k.
k8
IZrishnan, In&xans, p.23.
M.K. Nair, Annual Rept of the Agt of the
Governnent of India in British Malaya for the jear
1932, Kuala Lunipur, 1933, p.25.
Quoted in Gangulee's Indians in the Epire
Overseas, p.130.
51
Usha Nahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in
Burma and Malra, Vera & Co. Pablìshers Private
Ltd., New York, Institute of Pacific ielatious,
1960, p.100. OEereaf ter cited as Nahajani, Indian
Minorities.)
LL Nafr, Tndiaus in Ìa1ya, Xodnvagur Printing
Works, India, 1938, P.
Allen & Donnithorne, Western Bnterprise, p.20k.
54
R.B. Xrishnan, op. cit. p.2k.
Usha Mabajani, op. cit. p.100.
However, N.N. Nair says that the Chettiars
charged exi'bitaut interest, at 12 to 18% on
375
secured loans, and on promissory notes, 2f to 36,
p.101. The writer agrees with the orinion o± Usha
Nahajani, that the interests charged by the Chettiars
were not so high as that charged by the sikhs arid
Pathaus.
Indian Daiy Nail, 1t October, 19f7.
N.S. Ginsburg
v.P. Chester,
Malayas
Seattle,
1958, p.339.
S. Nanjuridan,
'Economic Development of Ma1ays-T,
India Quarterly, Vol.VIII, No.3 (July-September, 1952)
289-311.
60
Anglo-Indian word, meaning ten millions or one
hundred lakhs.
61
c. Kondapi, op. cit. p.301.
ibid. p.3O1.
G. Netto, Indians in Malaya: historical facts
and fiKures, Singapore, G. Netto, 1961, p.53.
This table is taken from S. Nanjundan's Indie-ne
in Malayan Economy, New Delhi, Government of India
Press, 1951, p.15.
eÍ'er to Appendices E and F
376
for a more detailed classification of occupational
distribution of Indians in Malaya.
'?.J. Hiriton, Government of the Pacific Dependencies,
British Malaya, Institute of Pacific Relations,
Honolulu, 1929, p.30.
HJ3. Ginsburg & P.R. Chester, op. cit. p.333.
M.V. Tufo Del, Malaya: A Report on the 19k7 Census
of Population, London 19k9, p.477, Table 88.
68
NS. Ginsburg
See
P.R. Chester, op. cit. p.330.
ich H. Jacoby, ¡rian Unrest in South-east
Asia, New York, Columbia University Press, 19ft9,
p.129. The settlement at Bagan-Serai, Perak was set
up by the Roman Catholic Mission in the 1870's while
the settlement at Chua, Negri Seinbilan consisted
of 23 acres of thickly wooded jungle and 500 acres
of drr land unsuitable for rubber.
70
71
Nanjundan, op. cit. p.18.
L.A. Mills, op. cit. p.5.
Mahajani, Indian Minorities, p.117.
Raja di Huir was one of the first Malaya to use
377
this term. Federa]. Council
oceedin&s, 1927, p.B7.
See tTsha Mahajani's The sole of Indian Minorities
in Burma and Malaya, p.117. In the book review by
K.S. Sandhu, found in Journal of South-east Asian
Hit, Vo3, No.1, March 1962, he argues that the
Malay Civil Service was only manned by the British
and that the Malayan Adiiinistrative Service was
created for the Malays, instead of the other way
round, as has been suggested by Dr. Mahajani. See
also Shine Gordon's "Malay Reservations: Intention
and Reality", Seed, Volume 2,
6, Publication
of the Malaysian Sociological Research Institute
Ltd., Singapore. She argues that despite the Malay
Land Reservation Laws, the intention of which were
to safeguard the Malays against the onslaught of
the rubber and tin economy, the landless Malays
were still exploited by landlords who were Malaya.
L.A. Mills, op. cit. p.6.
Maurice Freedman, "The Growth of a Plural Society
in Malaya", Pacific Affairs
Vol.XXXIII, 2(June 1960)
378
p. 162-163.
LA. Mills, op. cit. p.5.
Gopa]. Nahan, "Indians in South-East Asia" Eastern
World, July 1952, Vol.VL, Number 7, p.l.
Lanka Sundaram, "International Aspects of Indian
Eiiigration", Asiatic Review
April 1931, p.295.
crT.;li
379
SWLy ND CO1TCLUSOTS
Froi tiiìm immemorial, there ho.d been
loig hiotorica] contacts between Malaya and India.
This waí main]y duo to its focal ceocçraphical
ponition,
and th
r1dn
it a highway between the East
7'st. fndian ships made their
straits of Ma1icca to Sinjore
Archipelago. Indian tradera an
av down the
thc Malay
settlers concentrated
on the coastal areas and established comnerciJ. and
culturt&1 contacts. Hindu social and political
customs were set up, and these fused with the
traditional MaIay practices.1 Thus many of the
islands of the Malay Archipelago were Hinduised
as early ss the fifth century
.D., and this was
mainly due in the early period to the influence
of the Pallava Dynasty which ruled along the eastern
seaboard of Southern In.dia
from the third to the
eighth century.2 The works of Georges Coedes shed
a whole flood of light on the Indianized states of
Na1.aa. About the seventh century the Sri Vijaya
380
thnire was 3et un; in the eighth century the
'3ailendra 1)ynaty concuereci Malaya, and ite
sovercipnty spread over Java
nd Sumatra as well.
Then from lfC0 A.D. there was set up the Majapahit
1pire. But towards the end of the ftfteerith century
hindu influence waned axii Islani carne to influence
the Malayan world, with its inip-Lct on Valayan
culture and literature.3
y the seventeenth century
the conversion of the Malays to Is'am was complete.
It is interesting to note that the early Indian
settlers wo introduced Islam into Malaya married
native women of the Peninsula and the offepings
were known as Jawi Pcranakan,
who knew both Tami].
and Malay, the languages of their parents.
Thiring the rule of the Portuguese and
later the T)utch, Thdian influence in the Malayan
world waned. But with the establishment of British
rule, which began in 1786 when Captain Fancis
Light took forma]. possession of the island of
Penang, a new phase of Indian influence in the
38]
flalay Archipelaro began. During this Dbase, Indian
CDO75 were brouht over to mintajn Jw and order
whi1
Indian ]abourers an
convicts helped to
build rnads, cinrches -nd harbours.
the beCitrnin
of the present centTlry great changes took place
wxch trans formed the Malayan economy from a most
primitive one to th
inort prosperous and ar3vanced
in Southeast Asia.5 The introduction of the hevea
brasjjjensjs from south Mierica necessitated the
import of large supplies of cheap Indian labour,
especially from 1ad ras. Once the Indian and Chinese
immigrants entered Malaya, the tropical rain
forests retreated farther and farther to make
way for plantations, roads, rails and mines. By
the first decade of the present century, rubber
drove out the other plantation crops and Indian
labour was eagerly recruited from rural areas
of South India. When the planters found that it
was cheaper to attract another planter's labour
by offering terms of higher wages, they resorted
382
to
crimping", r'thcr thin to recruit labouz from
Inrja. This evi]. practice threatened to unset the
whole basis of
mirant labour. Thur the Indian
Immigration Committee and its attendant the Indian
Imiigrtion Fund were primarily set up to deal
with the evi). By
tax levied on
ll employers
of Inian labour, the Committee could finance the
passages of Indian labourers from india. 3ome
Indian nationalists claimed that it was "merely a
machine for the maximum possible exploitation of
labour."
6
Nevertheless, if we make proper allowance
for hysterical exaggerations designed for propaganda
purposes, instead of contributing to truth, there
still remains a grain of truth that the Committee
was a weapon in the planters' bands to facilitate
the import and export of labour as a commodity.
Notwithstanding this, the Committee was an instrument
which preserved the economic structure of Malaya,
with its entire dependence on immigrant labour.
It curbed the self-reliance of the Indian labourera,
383
m&cin
them look to the Government for protection.
The magnitude of Indian irnniigration was
ma:inly conditioned by the economic development of
Malaya. During 1880-1900 the average number of
arrivals from India was about 20,000 per year.
But fron 1901-1910 the mauitude of Indian
immigration averaged about
8,000 annually. During
the next decade it rose to 90,000 per year; and
from 1921-1930 it averaged about 88,000. In the
next decade the average numbered 76,000. Indian
migration to Malaya was terminated by the ban
imposed on emigration of unskilled labour by the
Government of India in 1938. Ft'om that time onwards,
emigration from India was only restricted to wives
and children of labourers already in Malaya.
The average India&s stay in Malaya was
only for about two to three years. Thus very few
women acconipatlied the labourers. Besides giving
rise to decadence and vice among the labourers,
it also affected the growth of the Indian population
38k
in the country. Before the Second .7orlr Jar, a
very tiny proportion aonp the Indians in Malys
regarded Malaya as their home. In short, the Indians
remained a separate community by itself, refusing
to identify themselves with the local people or
to be assjmjlztod. But after the war the Nalayan
Indian population was stabilized and was no longer
dominated by the itf lux snd efflux of labourers.7
Still they retain many purely Indian habits,
traditions and institutions although many of them
have adapted to their new 6urroundings and have
developed a new outlook.8
The status and structure of the Indian
community in Malaya differed from the Chinese
community. The Indian labourers were protected by
legiBlation, and the Goirertunent of India was always
eager to strive for better working and living
conditions. They were watched over by the Controller
of Labour and his staff as well as by the Agent of
the
oyernent of India appoi.nted in 1923. Conversely,
385
early Chinese immirtion was reltecl by the
terms of the Eriigration Conventior signen between
the Un.ited !cindom
nd China in May 190k. Inwiigration
into Malaya proceeded accordino to a srstem of indenture
termed by the Chinese as the chue tsai system9
meaning the system of sl1ii
piglets. The practice
was that the Chinese labourers were recruited by
an aetit w10 woulc finance their passages to Malaya.
Upon arrival, they had to labour until the amount
paid by their employer to the aent had been recovered.
This system gave full rein to abuses anr maipractices,
and it ended in 191k when it was finally abolished.
The Chinese were left very much on their own for
the arrangements made by the Government of India
for its nationals did not apply to them. The Chinese
Protectorate only intervened to prevent gross abuses.
Whereas the legislation to regulate Indian labour
was superfluous, labour legislation for the Chinese
was looser and far more laxly enforced. The crux
of the difference lies in the fact that the Chinese
386
labonrers eemd far bctter alr to stand öt their
own feet.
eMdes the Chese Goverru,ent was too
embrcile3 in its own affairs to take care of them.
It was ttlso thought that t'e
1rincse labourers
would resent restrictions pìace
on them fro'
above.
It has been pointed out that the Iidian
problem in Malaya is further complicated by the
Chinese problem.10
ut there is one compensating
factor: white settlers are very few in the country.
The complication is that the Malays have become a
minority group in their own country. At first the
Nalays were indifferent when the influx of Indian
and Chinese immigrants swaniped the labour market
and monopolized certain professions. As time went
on they became increasingly aware that the Indians
and Chinese had operated to their disadvantage.
Thus there grew up zenophobia among the Malays
towards the immigrant races.
Besides its adverse influence on the
387
'rowth of the Iniar popuJation in Malaya, the
Japneze Occupation also stirred up the Indians
by the formation nf the Indian National !imy and
the Lidian Independence League. In fact they were
the croup most affected by the war. The Provisional
Covernmen.t of the Azad rund was set up in singapore.
It was inaugurated on 21st. October 193 at the
Cathay C1inema,
12
under the guidance of
Chandra Bose, who had
ubhas
become the President of the
IlL in July. The HL was set up to collect funds,
to recruit and train troops and to spread propaganda.
Controversy is often generated when considering the
extent to which the INA was supported by funds
extorted from the wealthy Indian merchants, with
the aid of the Japanese police and sometimes of
the Rempeitai. There is no doubt that some extortion
was exerted on the wealthy Indians in the form of
irregular levies on their tunds. Whether Subhas
Chaidra Bose and the IlL had absolute rights over
the liTes and properties of the Indians in Malaya
388
i
only a matter of opinion)3
The short Indien collaboration with the
Tapanese durinp the war drew forth hostility from
the other races iminedittely after the war. The
Chinese were hostile because the Indians had
aligned themselves with the Japanese who all the
time during the occupation demonstrated in Malaia
the savagery of Japanese imperaiism.1k Most of the
people in the country felt that the Japanese
Occupation was a nightmare, and hence little love
was lost between theni and those who collaborated
with the Japanese.
Opinion is also divided as to the reasons
which prompted the Indians to join the INA and
the IlL. While many joined in there were also a
good number who steered clear of the events. Some
joined in order to secure the protection of the
IlL from the Japanese Kempeitai, and for personal
safety as well as safe,xarding of private properties.
There was also the attempt to join the iENA in order
389
to rLvoid beincr conscripted by t'e Ja-nanese into
labour rrtns. There were a c'ood many wo were mere
soldiers ot' fortune, who joined in just for gain.
any joined in because they wanted to
et clothing
3nd rice rations for their families, while others
were coPipelled to do so. iotithstandin
this,
there was a eood deal o1 genuine enthusiasm
stirred up by- Chandra Bose's oratory. Many Thdians
were intoxicated with the toddy of his fiery
speeches. They had their own Independence flag,
and League badres, and wore Gandhi caps.. But in
spite of this, the INA and the Japanese forces
were defeated at Imphal, the gateway into the
plains of Bengal. It has been suggeste1 that the
INA and what it stood for will not be easily
forgotten by the Indians in Malaya. The Indians
bad learnt the use of firearms and political
organization. This had immense importance on the
period after the war.
It is interesting to examine whether
390
eniration froi India to distant larvis, such as
Malaya, durinr' the nineteenth and trîentieth
ceiturics hs succeeded or not to aolv
the
roblem
of oerpopu1ation in Indie. Indeed
.......... eijration lias for centuries
boen recomnendec and, rthen possible,
used as a favourite nostrum for the evils
of overpopulatiori)5
It cannot be deniet
that the problerm of overpopulation
loorued larje in Indian hictory. It was mainly due
to population pressure that the Indian conmnity
finds itself in Malaya today. But for years past
and even tho present day, the congestion in the
vil].nges along the alluvial plains of northern and
southern India cannot escape the observer's eye.
This can be explained by the fact that
.......... every day India adds to her
population the equivalent of at least a'
town of twenty-four thousand inhabitants.
This means that Indja's population
increases very year by at least five
millions. lo
In order to eradicate the necessity of faitïe or
to protide a standard of living comparable to that
391
in the more advanced countries of the vorld, the
nimber of people who have to emigrate from India
would be fantastic, l3esides the transfer of
appreciable numbers of people is quite impossible.
The procedure has often been naively thought of
a
simple arithmetic subtraction: the emigration
of a number of people has meant fewer people in
that area. It is true that with the emigration of
labourers from India to Malaya, there were fewer
people in the villages. But soon the gaps were
filled again by a. quicker rate of population
increase. Moreover the number of immigrants entering
Malaya every year was evenly matched by a number
of emigrants leaving Malaya for Indias Thus
emigration from India to Malaya during the nineteenth
ceitury and the first four decades of the present
century did not relieve population pressure in
India: it was only a temporary palliative and a
?Tstopgap procedure."
It remains to analyse critically the various
392
means which can be used to solve the Indian
problem in Nalaya.
t first plance it seems that
intermarriage will solve the difficulty of assimilting
the Indian minority in the country. It is easier
to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear than to
attempt this, for Is].am bars the Malaya from
intermarrying with the Indien Hindus. This may be
feasible in the case of the Indian Muslims1 but the
latter forms such a small proportion of the Indian
community in the country that the problem will
still remain. Ian Morrison suggests the solution
of partition
the Mal&ys should retain the
predominantly Malay areas of the north, east and
south, while the Chinese and Indians share among
themselves the areas along the west coas t where
they are concentrateh17 He also poir1ts out that
this is rather a policy of despair, giving rise
to more problems that it might solve. Indeed this
separatist policy is not feasible in a plural
society. India today still has over thirty-five
393
million
uslims wliule Pakistan, which was created
primarily as a Muslim country still is only 85.8
per cent Muslim.
Partition will only aggravate
the problem. Besides the three main races are so
inextricably tanGled that it is difficult to
sparate the country into three exact zones. knother
solution is the establishment of complete Malay
sovereignty over the whole peninsula, with the
non-Malaya boina subject to the Malay sultans.
This the non-Malaya, especia].ly the Indians and the
Chinese would never acquiesce.
Perhaps the solution lies in "a satisfactory
and enduring adjustment of interests and rights,
in which the different elements while preserving
their cultural and racial identities, would coalesce
into a solid political and economic unity.'19 The
way to coalesce into a solid political and economic
unity is to develop, in the words of the Prime
Minister of the Malayan 1edera tien, Tunku Abdul
Rahnian, Ttj
all the races in Malaya ........ .. as
3914.
soon a
possible an undeniably Mal'yan outlooic
ant' loaity.T
c1ucation can also hein to foster
this Malayan outlook, for a spirit of common
ntionaiity can be instilled into the minds of
the youn
generation. But here the question arises:
what shou]d be the main medium of intructjon in
the scbool? Under British rule, the attempt was
made on the basis of Englith. The present system
is based on the Education Ordinance of 1957, in
which it was laid down that the standard primary
school should use Malay as the main medium and should
be oren to children of all races. English would be
taught to ai]., vïhile Chinese and Tamil might be
taught to children of the respective races.2°
Besides imposing the children the task of learning
three languages at a tender age, it has the effect
of emphasizing racial identities. More emphasis
should be paid in using Malay as the main medii.uu
of instruction not only in primary but also in
secondary schools in order to build up a Malayan
outlook. Surely the Indiane and the Chinese would
395
nover acquiesce, but as F!urert
erson says,
The things which must be forgotten on
behalf of national unity bulk almoct
as ].ire and importent as those which
be remembered ................ the
national memory embraces as well as
those things which must be forgotten
as those which must be remembered.21
In short the Indians and chinese should forget
their racial identities and remember that they are,
first and foremost, Malayans. They should accept
Malay as the main medium of instruction in primary
and even, secondary schools. But I do not at all
mean to imply that they should forget their own
respective languages. They should still learn them
in school but not to such extent as to exclude
the learning of Malay. Similarly, in a spirit of
give and take, the Malay should learn Taiii1 and
Chin.ese so as to understaxil mare about the non-Malaya,
in order to accept them. Thus in the ef fluxion of
time, all the barriers and barricades separating
the different communities in Malaya will disappear,
and "all the
ariou
eleiients will be fused into
396
a true Malyan
flfltÍOrl.U22
As 1.3. Panhu sys,
The nevï Malayan Nation can never be
wholly Malay nor can it be Indian or
Chinese. Rather it will have to be
Malayan in vîhch each contunity would
have its rightful place.23
Perh
in
the solution to the racial i,robleius
a1aya would be solved by the forima.ion of
Malaysia, which niean advantagec not only on
economic and political grounds, in matters of
currency and administration, but also on racial
grounds. Besides beinC a means to fight against the
spread of Communism from Singapore
2k
territories and to the Federation of
to the Borneo
aaya,2
the
merging of Zarawak, Erunei, North Borneo, Federation
of Malaya and SinCapore would increase the proportion
of Malays in the new entity of Malaysia. It has
been estimated that out of the total population of
ten million in Malaysia, the Malays would be evenly
balanced against the Chinese who would form 38 per
cent and the Indians 10 per cent.26 This would
perhaps offset the xenophobia of the Malays against
397
tn
no_l4tlrs. But there is always the
ner
thtt unseen robles would arise onoe Malrysia
comes into being, for the variety of existin
cultures would be further multiplied. Unless the
sirit of TTtatj?T27
j
developed among the
various races wh.ch vould forrn Halaysia, the old
problems of minorities would br repeated aaii.
he part the Ma]ayan Indians would play in the
new state of Malaysia remains to be seen in future.
The minority problems in a plural
society should be solved. If not, it would lead
to a deterioration in racial relations and to a
survival of the fittest from which the stronger and
more dynamic element would emerge. Unless there is
racial homogeneity, the plural society of Malaya
would either stand or fall. The Indians in Malaya,
no less the Chinese and the Malaya, should learn
"to live together without turning their country
into an ulcer, poisoning
ot merely their own
unhappy livea but those of over a thousand million
people."
28
Footnotes.
Halya: The Making of a Tation, Central Office
of Inforrnati.on, 1,T.. Sta ti.onertT Office.
2
The Rt. Hon. T.A. Butler, "The Indian Heritage
in Couth-Eastern Asiafl, Eastern
orld, Vol.IV,
5 (May 1950) p.].5.
Dr. S. Van Ronkel, "A Tainil Malay MannscriptTT,
Journal of the Straits Branch, Royal Asiatic
Zociet, 8
k
(March 1922), p.29.
D.D. Chelliah, A History of the Iducational
Policy of the Ctraits Settlements with
for a New System Based on Vernacu1ars
ecommendations
1800-1925,
Singapore 1960, p.5.
G.P. Dartford, "Malaya: Problems of a Polyglot
Society", Current History, Vol. 3k (June 1958),
p.347, (Hereafter cited as Dartford, "Problems of
Polyglot Society".)
6
T.H. Silcock and PL.A. Ungku, "Nationalism jfl
Malaya", Asian Nationalism and the West,W.,L. Holland
(ed.), New York: The MacMillan Company 1953, p.27k.
399
Maurice Freedrian, "19'e growth of a Plural Society
in Malaya" Pacific Affairs, Vo1.XXCII1, 2(Jwie 196Ö)
p. i65-166.
8
(1.5. Hozman
"Some Problems o
*
Indian Thiigration",
Asia1i Horizon, 1948, p.22.
Alex Josey, wade Unionism in Ma1aya, (Background
to Malaya Serieo, No.4) Singapore, 1954, p.9.
lo
Dey Murarka, "Indian Enigration Overseas",
Eastern World
Vol.C'I, 4(pri1 1961) p.O.
DUG.E. Hall, ÌIThe European Impact on Southeast
Asia", Nationalism and Progress in Free Asia,
P.W. Thayer (ed.), Baltimore 1956, p.45.
12 Hugh Toys, The Springing Tiger: A Stu4y of a
eTol1itionary, Cassell and Co. Ltd., London l99,
13 ibid., p.95.
14 Chin Ree Onu, Malaya Uaide Down., Singapore
l94, p.1k?.
1
J.O.
ertzler, The Cri-s in. World Population:
4_..i4McøJ
zai*atioit wik
Special RefereOe
+o the Underdeveloped Areas,Un-Lversity of Nebraska
Prose, 1956, p.227.
Bruno Laoker, Asia on the Move, Instituto of
Pacific Reltios, l9L5, p.195, quoting S. Chanclrasekbar,
"Growth and Characteristics of India's Population",
Ccientifjc Monthly, July 191f3.
17
Ian Morrison, "Aspects of the Racial Problem in
Malaya", Pacific Affairo, Vol.XXII, 1(March 1949),
p.252. (Hereafter cited as Morrîson, "Racial Problem
in Malaya".)
18
Irene Tinker, "Malayan Elections: Electoral
Pattern for Plural Societies?", The Western Political
arter1y, Vol.IX, (1956) p.259.
19
20
Morrison, "Racial Problem in Malaya", p.252.
Dartfgrd, "Problems of a Polyglot Society't,
1.351.
2].
Rpert
erson, "The Progress of Nationalism",
4.onmand Progress in
ee Asia, P,W
Thayer
(ad.), Baltimore 1956, p.77.
22
the Btrit..
Booc: Mgya' Road tLO Nationhood,
Press Ltd., Singapore, p.56.
n
23
2
T(.Z. Saruiu, Indians in
odern Iaiaja, pB5.
Toth the Prime Minirter of Singapore, Mr. Lee
Kuan Yew and the rremier of the Malayan Feteration,
Tunku Abdul Rahman, feel that the best way of
preventrir the tpread of Communism in Singapore
is to establish the Federation of Malaysia.
25
.E.H. Rawlings, "Prospects for a Greater Malaysia't,
Asian Reviow, Vol.LVIII, 21(Ju1y 1962) p.205.
26 TThe Economic Basis of Malaysia", Asian Review,
Vol..LVII, 21k(April 1962) p.132.
27 C.A. Macartney, National Minorities, New York:
Oxford University Press, 19311.. He defines fltatismTT
as the sense of membership in a state, as opposed
to "nationalism"1 meaning the sense of membership
in a nation
28
"Racial Problems in
a1aya", quoting
Dr. TE. Silcock, Professor of Economics in
Singapore, p.239.
GLCUY
atsi, attap
- leaves of palma generally
used for thatching.
bertam
- a shrub the leaves of which
are used for building
walls, like those in
alay houses.
changkol, chankul - cultivating tooL like a hoe,
with a wooden handle and
a metal blade. They are
of various sizes, the largest
being ll. inches long and
weighing 6 lbs. The Chinese
work best with this last.
The size for the Taniil
and other Indian labourers
is about i or pound in
weight.
dhoil, dhail
- an. Anglo-Indian Corruption of
'dal', a split-pulse usually
used by Tamils.
kampong
- a Malay village.
kangani, kangany
- Indian labour overseer and/or
contractor.
lines
- quarters for coolies with the
ground surrounding them.
mander
- overseer of coolies at work.
munsif, munsif f
- a village beadan in Jadras.
- Th1s Taml vord neans haically
aoci, and can be extended
to mean master and lord.
it is commonly uBed for
the idols in a Hindu
temple and even more
conrionly for a priest.
tiridal
- an overseer of coolies at work.
toddy
- sap of the coconut-palm which
is the national drink of
the Tamil.
B1L lOGRA PHY
¿f35
OFFICIAL DOODNENTS
A.
Re:ports On Indian Immigration And Labour.
Ahearne, C.D., Annua]. Report of the Working of
the Labour Department för the Year 1931,
Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government
Press, 1932.
Lumpur: Federated Ma
the Working of the
e Year 1932, Kuala
States Government Press,
1933.
Annual Report of the Labour Department,
Malaya for the Year
Kuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay States Government Press, 1935.
Aldworth, J.R.O., Annual Report on the Labour
Department for the Year
Singapore:
Government Printing Office, 1913.
Annual Report on the Working of the
Labour Department for the Year 1915, Kuala
Lumpur: Labour Office, l9l6
, Annual Report on the Workin of the
r Department for the Year 1916, Kuala
Lupur: Labour Office, 1917.
Report ori the Workin
of the Labour
Dem!nt for the Year l9, ICiala Lumpur:
Iabour Office, 1919.
Department,
r: Federated
Barren, J.L,
Pxee, 1936.
406
Bathurat, H.C., Annual Report on the Labour Department
r tho Year 1929, Kuala Lumpur: Federated
Malay States Government Press, 1930.
Clayton, U., Report on Indian Immigration and
nigration for the Year 190, PerianC 1906.
11,H., Report on Indian Immigration and
Eniation for the Year 1906, Penano 1907.
Report on Indian Lmnigration and Eigraton
for the Year 1907, Penan: Indian Immigration
Office, 1908.
pprt on Indian Immigration and. Eiigra tion
for the Year 1908, Penang: Indian Immigration
Office, 1909.
Repqt on Indian Imn4gation and Enigra tian
for the Year 1910, Penang: Indian Immigration
Office, ]1.
Report on Indian Immition and
igration for the Year 1911, Penang: Indian
Immigration Office, 1912.
Gilman, LLF., Repot on the Working of the Labour
Department for the Yea; .911
Kuala Lumpur:
Labour Office, i1
Report on the Working of the Labour
lepatment for the Year 1922, Kuala Lumpur:
Labour Office, 1923.
e Working of the Labour
Repot on
Deprtment for the rear 192Lf, Kuala Lumpur:
Labour Offic*, 192.
n tokg f. tLeIaxur
Ppartnent for the Year 1925, Kuala Lumpur:
Labour Office1 1926.
Annual Peort on the Labour Peartment
for the Year
Kuala Lumpur: Federated
Malay States Government Press, 1927.
Anrna1 Report on the Labour Department
for the Year 1922, Kuala Lumpur: Frederated
Malay States Government Press, 1928.
partment
Annual Ieport ou the Labour
Kuala Lumpur: Federated
for the Year
Malay States Government Press, 1929.
I
Haynes, LS., Report ou Indian Imn4gration and
igration for the Year J99, Penang: Indian
Immigration Office, 1910.
1h11, T.1h., Report for the Resident-General,
Fedetated Malay States, from the Protector
of Indian Labour for the Tear 1901, Selangor
Government Press, 1902.
ort on Indian Imntigration and
igration for the Year 1902, Office of the
Protector of labour, 1903.
iation
Repert on Indian Immigration and
Office
of
the
Protector
of
!oI tbe Tear
Labour, 190k.
,
pot on Indian Immigratioji aM
jgtjon for the !ear l9k, 0f fib. of the
i-otector of Labour, 1905.
HBe, E.S., 2poto* the
orkin
û tbQur
ertm.nt fO tQ tear J,9], Kuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay Stites GoTerument Presa, 191k.
1eport on the 7orkin of the Labour
Department for the Year 191k1 lZuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay Stateo Government Press,
1915,
Houghton, R.GI.D., Annual 1e1port of the Labour
partment for the Year 19k?, Kuala Lumpur:
Government Press, 19kB.
Jelf. A.S.,
port on the Working of the Labour
p.rtment for the Year 1923, Kuala Lunipur:
Federated Malay States Government Press,
192k.
Marks, Oliver, Report on the Working of the Labour
Department for the Year 1919, Kuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay States Government Press, 1920.
Peel, W., R!port en the Workingçf the Labour
Department for the Year J920, Kuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay States Government Press, 1921.
__________, Report on the Working of the Labour
Department for the Year J921, Kuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay States Government Press,
1922.
Ztark, W.T.K.,.A.nnual Report of the Labour Deiartment
for the Year 1930, Kuala Lumpur: Federated
Malay States Government Press, 1931.
of tb jabour
Wi1eo, C., Report on the Worki
)artment for the Tear 1933, Kuala Lupu:
l'sderated Malay Stateø Government Presa, 193k.
inuual. Report.,f the Labertent,
Wia for
Kuala Lpur: federated
be
1alay states Government Frees, 1937.
Annual Report of the Labour Department,
Malaya for the Year 1937, Kuala Lwnpur:
Federated Malay States Governmont Press, 193S.
Annua]. Report of the Labour Depax'tinent,
Malaya for the Year
Kuala Lumpur:
Federated t!alay States Government Press, 1939.
Annual Report of the Labour Department,
Malaya for the Ye'r 1939, Kuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay States Government Press, 19ko.
Annual Rept of the Labour Department,
Malaya for the Year
Kuala Lumpur:
Federated Malay States Government Press, 19k1.
B.
Reports of the Agent of the Government of
India in Malaya.
Dutt, S., Annual Report of the Agent of the Governmen
of India in Ma1a-a for the Year 19k0, Simia:
overnment of India Press, 19k]..
Mukunan, K.A., Annual Report of the Agent of the
Goverrment of India in ritisb Malaia for the
Year 1933, New Delhi: Govermmen of India Press,
193.
___________, Annua]. Report of tb
4gnt o te
of India in
itiøh NaIaya ir the
Tear l9, New Delhi: Go'c'ernment of India Press,
1935.
Report of the Agent of the
Govininent of India iBrjtjsh Ma1ay
the Tear ]» New Delhi: oerwient ot India
Press, 1936.
Annual Report of the Agent of the
yernment of India in British. Ma1ay for
the Year 1936, New Delhi: Government of
Indi& Press, 1937.
Nair, M.K., Annual Report of the 4ent of the
Government of India in British Ma1y for
the Year l93, New Delhi: Government of
Indi& Press, 1933.
Venkatachar, 0,5., Annual Report of the Agent of
the Government of India in British Malaya
for the Year 1937, New Delhi: Government of
India Press, 1939.
C.
Census Reports.
Hare, G.T., The Census of the Pop4ation 1901,
Federated Malay States, Selangor, 1902.
Marriott, H.., Report on the Census of the Colony
of the Straits Settlements taken on 10th.
March 1911, Singapore: Government Pr:inting
Office, 1911.
Nathan, JE., The Census of British Ma1ay, 1921,
London: Waterlow and Bons, Ltd., 1922.
ie Census of the Federated Ma
Pountney, A.M.,
Stptes 191k, London: Darling anca Son, Ltd.,
1911,
Tufo J)el, M.V., Malaya: A Report on the 19k7 Census
of ppu].atìon, London: Grown Agents for the
ÇøLøiiies, 19k9.
Viieland, C A.,
ritisb
3.a7a: .& :eport on the
u93l Censu.3
nd on Certain Problerms of Vital
Statiti.cs, London: Crown Aents for the
Colonies, l32.
D.
Miscellaneous.
Federated Malay States.
L.S., The Indian Immigration Fund arid Its
Workigin Connection ?ith Recruiting
Labourers by Means of Kaganies in the Madras
Presien, Federated Malay States Government
Press, 1910.
Keir, A., Annual Report on Education in the Federated
Malay States for the Year 1937, Si ngapore:
Government Printing Office, 1938.
Linehan, W., Annual Report on Education in the
Federated Maly States for the Year 193g,
Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1939.
Paper No.11,
Proceedings of the Federal Council lj
Peport of the Commission &ppointed to Enire
iito the Conditions of Indentured Labour, by
Parr,
C.W.CI., Federated
Malay States Government
Pr es s.
Proc eedina of the Federal Council 1911, Federated
Malay $tates Government Preis 1912.
Proce4i
of the Federal Council 192,3, Federated
1ay States GoveDnment Press, 1f.
of the YedeZ*l Council l2l, Federated
Malay 8tates GoiernmeM PreSe, 1928.
ana Reports of the Çç*.teion. Appointed
412
to Enquire into Certain Matters Affecting
the Good Government of the State of Selangor
in }elation to the A1!fed Misuse end Abuse
of Toddy in the Coast Districts of Se1sigr,
Kuala Lunipur: Federated Malay States Governnint
Press, 191?.
eport of the Commission Arnointed to Enquire into
Certain Matters AffectinK the Health of Estates
in the Federated Malay States, Tother with a
Meìiorandum by the Chief Secretary to the
Government cl the Federated Ma'ay States,
Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1924.
Report of the Executive of the General Labour
Committee, British Malaya on Indian Labour
and Labourers, Kuala Lumpur, 1920.
Ret of the FirEt Meeting of the General Labour
Committee, British Malaya, Held at 12, Market
Street, Kuala Lumpur on May 31st.
Lumpur: The MaJ.aya.n Leader Press.
1899: Regulations ana
Enacteuts Passedky the State Council
Together with Rules nade Thereunder Ea.vi
Yçrce of Law, Voules, A.B., (copi1
Selangor Government Printing Office 1901.
Straits Settlements.
A Soci*Lt Sixvey of Sin pore: A Preliminary Study
of Some Aspects of Social Conditions in the
1unicipa1 Area of 5ingapore, Singapore:
a. Kiat and Co. Ltd., December 1947.
Morten, !'.J., Annual Report on Education in the
l95,
traits Settlements for the Ye
k
ßingapore: GovernmentInting &fce, 193e.
+13
Proceedjnps of the Lerjslative Council. Straits
Settlements for the Year Th87, Singapore:
Government Printing 0Zfic7T888.
Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits
Settlenents for the Year 1892, Singapore:
Government Printing Office, 1893.
Proceedings of the Legislative Council Straits
Settlements for the Year 1895, Singapore:
Government Printing Office, 1896.
Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits
Settlements for the Year l88Sìngapore:
Government Printing Office, 1899.
Proceeding of the Legislative Councilffitraits
Settlements for the Year 1900, Singapore:
Government Printing Office, 1901.
Proceedings of the Legislative Counci]., Straits
Settlements for the Year 1908, Singapore:
Government Printing Office, 1909.
ort of the Commission of Inquiry into the
State of Labour in the Straits Settlements
anI Protected Native States, Singapore iBo.
General.
of the United Planting Association
for theear 1952.
1(ennaway, Mark John, Some Investigations of the
Straite Settlements ad the Federated Mala:
z Coaxiercìal Press 1912.
$riba*k4, N. L a
MaTaicksar, A. L G.,
41k
on Indian Labou.r Thiigrating to Ceylon and
Malaia, Madras: Government Press, 1917.
Minutes of a Meeting of the Dnmigration Committee
on 23rd. March 1907, FenDng: Go'ernnient
Office.
Minutes of a Meeting of the Irnmiration Committee
on 10th. November 1919, Pen.ang: Government
Office.
Mukarrarns, A.M., Report of the honorary Commissioner
for Depresced Cissees, Straits Settlements and
the Federated Malay States on the Thaf±'ic
Between the South Indian Ports aiad Malaya,
Karthikeyan Press, Chidambaram 1928.
Precie of 1940, Reçrt on Education in the Straits
Settlements and Federated Malay States,
Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1941.
Price, I.R., Annual Report of the South Indian
Labour Fund Board, 1959, Federation of Malayan:
Government Press, 1960.
pp_on the Committee on
igration from India
o the Crown Colonies and Protectorates.
Sisiona1 Papers: Cmd. 5192, London: His
Majestyt s Stationery Office.
Re.port of the Committee on Nutrition in the Colonial
ire, CInd. 6051, London: Eis Majesty's
ßtationer Office, 1939.
Sastri, S.Sriuivaea, Report on the Condition of
In4iau Labour in May, New DeThi: Government
of India frees, 137.
The New Immigration Laws Departent cf Information
k15
for the Controller of Immigration, Federation
of Ma2aya Kuala Lumpur, 1952.
The
elngor Records, Misc. 3886/9k, No.389/9A1..
ki 6
NTSPAPER
Malaya Tribune. (Singapore)
The Malay Mail. (IÇuala Luinpur)
The Singapore Daily Times. (Singapore)
The Straits Tiizies. (Singapore)
OQKS
Allen, G.C. and Donnithorne, A., Western Enterprise
in Indoneeia and Malaya, London: George Allen
and tJnwin Ltd., 1957.
Andrews, C.F.,
-ue India, London 1939.
Bauer, P.T., The Rubber Industry: A Stu4y in
Çmpetition and Nonoo1y, Canibridge: Harvard
tiniversity Press 19k8.
Badc1el1, Roland, The Lights of Singapore, London:
!4ethuen and Co. Ltd.,
Cr-Sa'anders, A.JL, WorlçLPo ilation: Past C'owth
Oxford: Clarendon
ees,
a4 2reet
1936.
Cbandrasea,, L, UZ7 Peøple and
ation
pt Ida:
ois and Inteznationa3.
417
Tensions, London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd., 1954.
Population and Planned Parenthood in
India, London: George Allen and tJnwin Ltd.,
1955.
Chelliah, D.D., A History of the Educational
Policy of the Straits Settlements with
Recommendations for a New System Based on
Vernaculars, 18O0-1925, Singapore: G.H. Kiat
and Co. Ltd., 1960.
Chin, Kee On, Malaya Ude Down, Singapore: Jitts
and Co. Ltd., 194 6.
Churchill, Winston,
Haddir, 1908.
y African Journey, London:
Coast, John, Railroad of Death, London: The Commodore
Press, 1946.
Cox, O.C., Caste, Class and Race, New York 1948.
Davis, Kingsley, The Population of India and Pakistan,
New Jersey: Princeton UniTersity Press, 1951.
Dennery, L, Asia's Teeming Millions: and Its Problems
for the West, London: Jonathan Cape, 1931.
Dey, Dbaraa Yash, Qr Countrymen Abroad, Allahabad:
J.B. Krip1an.i, 1940.
Dutt, Romesb, The Economic History of India in the
Victorian Age, London, 1956.
Edgar, A.., Ccopi1or) 1(anal of RubbeD Planting,
a1a nmux, 198.
erson, Rupert, Malaysia: A Stud
.n Direct and
Indirect Rule, New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1937.
Figart, David M.., The Plantation Rubber Industry in
the Middle East1 '5ashington: Government
Printing Office, 1925.
Gangulee, N, Indians in the npire Overseas, The
New India Publishing House, Ltd., 19k7.
GhOsli, D., Pressure of Pçpulation and Economic
Efficiency in India, New Delhi: Indian Council
of World Affairs, 19k6.
Gilman, E.W.F., labour in British Malaya, Malayan
Series, No.XI, London: British ]ipire :Echibition,
192k.
Ginsburg, NS. and Chester, '.S., Malaya, Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1958.
Gore, the Rt. Hon. W.G.A. Ormsby,
pprt on a Visit
Ceylon and Java During the Tear 1928,
to Ma1y
London: H.M. Stationery Office 1928.
Hall, D.G.E., A History of _South-EasA4
acMi11an anco. Ltd., 1958.
London:
arrieon, B., Southeast Asia, A. Short History, London:
MacNillan and Co. Ltd., 1957.
Rastain, R, White Coolie, London: Hodder and Stoughton
Ltd., 19k7.
. Cri.s in World Eopu.lation: A
Hertler, J.O.,
aination with Special Reference
$ciologLca.
to the Uaderdeye1qpd Areas, Lincoln: University
abzkj ?Pes, 1956.
L.l9
Hinten, s.J., Government of the Pacific Dependencies:
British Malaya, Institute of Pacific Relctions:
Honolulu, 1929.
Ho, Seng Ong, Education for Unity in
laya: An
rjth Special Referenc'
in Its Plural Society
Union1 1952.
Teachers'
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
Economic Development of Malaya, Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955.
Jackson, R.N., Imn4grant Labour an the Development
of Malaya, 1786-1920, 'ederation of Malaya:
The Government Press, 1961.
Jacoby, E.H., Agrarian Unrest in South-Bast Asia,
New York: Columbia University Press, l91f9
Josey, Alex, Trade Unionism in Malaya CBackground
to Malaya Series, No.k) Singapore: Donald
Moore, 195k.
1arunakaran,
India in World Af1ars New Delhi:
Indian Council of World Affairs, 1952.
LP.1
Kondapi, C,, Indiane Overseas, l838-199, New Delhi:
Indian Council of World Affairs, 1951.
Krisb.an, R.B., Indians in Ma1: A Pageant of Greater
In&ja, Singapore: The Malayan Publishers, 1936
Laske,
irno, Pes of South-met Asia, LoDdon:
Victor Gollancz Ltd., l9kk.
Asi,a om the hove, New York:
,
azd Co., 19k6.
'
enr
Holt
420
Ii, Dun-jen, British Malaya: An Economic Analysis,
New York: The American Press1 1955.
-
Lim, Tay Boh, Problems of the MaJ.aan Economy,
(Background to Malaya Series1 No.10,)
Singapore: Donald ]oore, 1956.
Lord Russell of Liverpool, The iCnights of Bushido:
A Short History of Japanese War Cres, London:
Cassell and Company Ltd., 1958.
Macartney, C.A., National Minorities, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1934.
Maliajani, Usha, The Role of Indian Minorities in
Burma aud Malaya, New York: Institute of
Pacific Relations, 1960.
Malaya: The Making of a Nation, London: Central
Office of Information, H.M. Stationery Office,
1957.
Mason, Frederic, The Schools of Malaya, (Background
to Malaya Series, No.3Y, Singapore: Donald
Moore, 195?.
McNiir, J.F.A. and Bayliss, W., Prisoners Their
Own Warders: A Record of the Coiru-ict Prisoz
at Singapore, Westhinster: Constable, 1599.
.stern Asia, London:
Mills, L.A., British Rule in
Oxford University Press, 1942.
of Soutb-ast
e
__________,
OKford University Press, 1949.
Malaya, Â Pota
nd
Sia, London:
conoÍo. &ppr.isal,
aplim: Vniv.reity of 1innesota Preme, 18.
1Core, J.,
e Land a4d 'eop1e of Malaya and Singpre,
k2 1
Lordon: Adari and Charles Black, 1957.
Horeland, !.H., India at the Death of Akbar, London:
MacMillan an Co. Ltd., 1920.
Moreland, W.H., and Chatterjee, A.C., A Short Histoy
of India, London: Longans, Green and Co., 1956.
Mukerjee, R., Races, Lands and Food,New York, 19k6.
Murray, A., Asia (The Study Ma:p Note Books Series,
No.3) London, l95.
Nair, M.N., Indians in Malaya, India: Kodnvaur Printing
Works, 1938.
Nanjundan, S., Indians in Malayan
onomy, New Delhi:
Government of India Press, 1951.
Neelakanclha, Aiyer E., ludian Problems in Malaya: A
Brief Surve7 in Relation to niation, Kuala
Lumpur: The Indian Press, 1938.
Netto, George, Indians in Malaya: Historical
and Figures, Singapore: G. Netto, 1961.
cts
Orde-B.rowue, A. St. John, Labour Conditions in Ceylon,
Mauritius and MaJ.aya, London: B.M. Stationery
Office, l93.
Parmer, Jees Norman, Colonial Labour Policy and
Administration: A History of Labour in the
Rbber Plant
un Ha1aa, 1910-19k1, New
York: T.J. Angustin Incoxorated Ptalisber,
Locust Valley, 1960.
omic 3urTeof the P3Qifjc
J., An
irea; Popation a4d.Lancí Utilization, ?art T,
New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 19k1.
?e1.r, Ian
k22
PiJ.]ai, Purushottama Padmanabha, labour in Southeast
Asia: A Symposium, New Delhi: Indian
of Wor)d AffeirÇ 19k?.
Purcell,
Malaya: Outline of a Colory, London:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., l9k.
Victor1
2obequain, Charles, Malaya, Indonesia, Borneo and
the Fhj pines, London: Longmans Green and
Co., 193k.
Ruhomon, P., Centenary History of the East Indians
in British Guiana, 183Si938 Georgetown 1939.
Siloock, T.H., The Econoy of Ma]y., (Background
to Malaya Series, No.2,) Singapore: Donald
Moore, 1956.
Sim, Katherine, Ma1an Landscape, London: Michael
Joseph Ltd., 19k6.
Skinner, G.W., Chinese Society in Thailand: An
Analytical History, New Yok Cornell University
Press, 1957.
Smith, T.E., Population Growth in Malaya, London:
Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1952.
Song, Ong Slang, One Hundred Years of the Chinese
in SiJi
London: John Murr,
1923.
Savtki, NJ.,
oo.to Relatonaof In
South-
and thó Jr East, New Delhi: Indian
Counoil of World Affairs, 199.
Stamp, L.»., Asia: A Regional and Bconoic Geography,
London: Methuen, 1959.
423
Stembridge, Jasper H., The .'lorld: A General Regional
raphy, London: Oxford University Presa, 1953.
Swettenham, P.A., British MaJya, London: George
Allen and 1.7nwin LtcL, 1955.
The Nerdeka Book: Malaya's Road to Nationhood,
The Straits Times Press Ltd., Singapore.
Thompson, V.M., Postmortem on Malaya, New York, 1943.
Thompson, V., labour Problems in South-East asia,
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947.
Thompson, V. and Adlof f, R., Minority Problems in
South-East Asia, Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1955.
Thomson, David, Europe Since Napoleon, London:
Longnians, Green and Co., 1960.
Poye, Hugh, The Springing Tiger: A Stud7 of a Revolutionar
London: Cassell and Co. Ltd., 1959.
Waiz, S.A., Indians Abroad, Bombay, 1927.
Winstedt, Sir R.0., Malya and Its History, London:
Hutchinson's University Library Presa, 1948.
Wint, Guy, The British in Asia, New York: Institute
of Pacific Relations, 195k.
Zinkin T. and Gangal G.A., J.nlndian Village in the
Ieccali, London: Oxford University Press, 1959.
f2k
ARTICLES MID JOURNALS
Andrews, G.F., "India's
nigration Problem", i'oreii
Affairs, Vol.VIII, 2(ApriJ. 1930) k30-kl.
Bozman, G.E., "Sone Problems of Indian Eairation",
Asian Horizon1 (19k8) 22.
:Braddell, Ronald St. J., "Crime: It Punishment and
Prevention", One Hundred Years of Singapore,
Makepeace, 11., et al Cede.), Vol.1 (1921J
Butler, the Pt. Hon. R.à., "The Indian Heritage in
South-Eastern Asia", Eastern World, Vol.IV,
5 (May 1950) i4-i6. Carey, E.V., "Recruiting Tami]. Labour", The Selangor
Journal, Vol.111, (1895) 409_Lf 12f.
Cheeseman, H.P., "Education in Malaya, l9C0_l91t,
The Malayan Historical Journal, Vol.11,
l(July 1955) 30-k7.
Dartford, G.P., "Malaya: Problems of a Polyglot
ScietytT, Current Bisto, Vol.XXXIV (June 1958)
3kG-351.
tiProblems of Malayan Education", Oversea
ducJiou, Vol.XXIX (1957-1958) 33-37.
Dobby, LH.LI "Malayan Prospect", Pacific Affairs,
Vol.U1II, LF(December 1950) 39'Il.
P)iierson, R., "The Progress of Nationalism", Nationalism
and Progress in Pree As, Thayer, P.W. (edj,
Baltimore 1956, p.77.
Fairchild, H.P., "Optiu Population", Proeed1g
of the World P31atn, Sanger, M.(ed.), p.73.
2 5
Field, J.J., "Serie Observations on Vitamin IL
Starvation Among 1minìrant Indians in Malaya",
Nalayan Medical Journal, Vol.VI (1931).
Fisher, Charles A.,
The Thai1and-Buriia Railway",
Economic Geography, Vol.XXIII (April 1947)
85-97.
Freedman,Maurice, rThe Growth of a Plural Society
in Malaya", Pacific Affairs, Vol.XXXIII,
2 (June 196OY i-i68
Gamba, Charles, "Malayari Labour, Merdeka and After",
India uarter1y, Vol.(IV (1958) 281
Gordon, Shine, "Malay Reservations: Intention and
Reality", The Seed, Vol.11, 5 and 6. Publication
of the Malaysian Sociological Research Institute
Ltd., Singapore.
Hall, DUGIE., "The European Impact on Southeast
Asia", Nationalism and Progress in Free Asia,
Thayer, P.W.
d.) p.45.
Iodder, B.W., "Racial Groupings in Singapore", Ma1ayn
Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol.1, (October
1953) 25-36.
Íji. and British Malaya",
"Indian labour in Ceylon,
International Labour Review, Vol.XLII (JulyDecember 1940) 57-76.
IItenz2atibn&1 abour Review, Vol.XLVI, 6(December
paDsi.on
Jenkine, LO., "Rubber: Introduction and
*Lth Special Reference to Malaya", The Planter,
(ebrtary-14arch 1955).
426
Kaniar, li.I.S., "Indians in Malaya", Eastern World,
Vols.I and II (Deceniber 1952 and January 1963)
1k-16; 19.
"Labour in British Malaya in 1931", International
Labour ReTiew, Vol.XX\TI1I (1933) 397-402.
Lasker, Bruno, "Po:pulation Shifts in South-East
Asia" Far Eastern Cur!!, Vol.XIII, 22(NolTember
1, 1944)
Lirn, Kean Siew, "The Chinese in Malaysia", The Seed,
Vol.11 2(January-February 1961) 1, Publication
of the Malaysian Sociological Research Institute
Ltd.1 Singapore.
Mahan, Gopal, "Indians in South-East Asia", Eastern
World, (July 1952) 1k-15.
Menon, Dr. N.IC., "Indian Immigration into Malaya",
Iuterpreters' Annua1 (1948-1949), 37-42.
Morrison, Ian, "Apects of the Racial Problem in
Malaya", Pacific Affairs, VoJ..XXII, 1 (March
1949) 239-253.
Murarka, Dcv, "Indian Eaigration Overseas", Eastern
World, Vol.XV, 3 and f(March and April I61T
14-16; 20.
Nanjundan, Z., "Economic Development of Malaya",
udia Quarteriy, Vol.VIII, 3(July-Septeinber
l95) 289-311.
Na'ae.aian , P.S., "The Immigrant Communities of
South-East .Lsi&', India uarter1y, (JanuaryM&rh 3.947)
Purcell, Y., "The Influence of Racial Minorities",
427
Nationalism and Frojress in
'ree Asia, Thayer,
P.V1. (ed.) 23k-245.
atnain, S.Raja, "Malaya: A Nationalism in the
Making', Asian Horizon, Vol.111, 1(Winter
1950-1951) 2k-3k.
Rawlings, EH., "Prospects for a Greater Malaysia",
Asian Review, Vol.LVIII, 215(J\ily 1962) 204-207,
Ridley, R.N., "How Rubber started in 'a1aya", Young
Malayans, (6th February 1952).
Ronkel, Dr. S. Van, "A Taniil Malay Manuscript",
Journal of the Straits Branch of the Ro5al
Asiatic Cociety, 85(March 1922) 29-35.
Sandhu, KS, "Some Preliminary Observations of the
Origins and Characteristics of the Indian
per8 on
Migration to Malaya l?86.1957t,
Malayan Eisto, Tregonning, K.G. (ed.), Papers
submitted to the First International Conference
Singapore 1962.
of South-East Asian
Historians1
Silcock, T.H. and Aziz, 13.A., "Nationalism in Malaya",
Asian Nationalism and the West, Holland, (ed.),
New york: The acMi11ao., 1953.
Erinivas, M.N. "The Social System of a'sDre Village",
The Economic Weekly of Bombay 1955.
Sundaram, Lanka, "International Aspects of Indian
FlAigration", Asiatic Review, Vol.XXVI (October
1930) 741-48; Vol.flVII TJanuary, April, and
July 1931) 113-21; 287-96; 588-98.
"The Economic Basis of Malaysia", Asian Review,
I]..LVIII, 21k (April 1962) 13-135.
k2 S
iThe Planter, Vol.XVI, 7(Ju].y 1935).
Tinker, irene, "Vialayan Elections: Electoral Pattern
for Plural Locieties?", The Western Political
arterly, Vol.IX (1956) 258-282.
Turner, G1E., "Indian Immigration", The Malayan
Historical Journal, Vol.1, 2(December 195)
8ø8Ik.
"A rerak Coffee fl.anter's Report on
the Tamil Labourer in Malaya in 1902", The Malayan
IItorical Journal, Vol.11 (July 1955) 20-28.
Vandenbosch, Amry, "Malaya: the Chinese and Hindu
Problems", Current History, Vol.XXIII, (August
1952) 8o-8.
Viieland, C.A., "The Population of the Malay Peninsula:
A Study in Human Migration", The Georaphîcal
Review, Vol.XXIV (January 193g) 6i-W
"The 197 Census of Malaya" Pacific
Affairs, Vol.XXII, l(Marcki 19k9) 59-63.
You, Pob Seng, "The Population Growth of Singapore",
Malayan Economie Review, Vol.IV (October 1959)
56-69.
UNPUBLISHED WORKS
Jagatheesan, N., tllnmigration of Indian Labour into
ercie,
Malaya 1867-1910", Unpublished Academic
k2 9
University of Malaya, )ingapore l95+.
Jeaeva
Ç., ??Thdjan Imnjration into Malaya
19].O_l9kltI, Unpublished Academic Exerci5e,
University of Malaya, Singapore l959.
Sandhu, K.., "Indians in Modern Malaya"1 A Manuscript
of a forthcoming publication by Donald Moore
under Background for Malaya Series.
Lf3Q
APPEND ICES
433
perdix A
RULES FOR TE MAINTENANC: CF TH: HOME FOR
DREPIT INDIANS, KCAI
LUNPIJR.
1. The Home is intended to be a free
asylum for Indian labourers who by reason of age
or other physical disability are unable to earn
their own living.
2. The Home is to be managed by a
Superintendent, nominated by the Indian Immigration
Committee, subject to the approval of the Chief
Secretary.
3. A roster of visitors will be nominated
annuelly by the Indian Immigration Committee and
it will be the duty of two of the visitors on the
roster to visit the Home on at least two occasions
during each month of the year.
All applications for admissiou to the
Home must be made in writing to the Superintendent,
and must be accompanied by a full report on the
case by a registered medical practitioner, certifying
that the person for whom admission is requested is
decrepit. The full name and address of the person
making an application on behalf of a decrepit must
also be given.
if
5. No decrepit must be sent to the Home
until an order for admission has been received from
the Superintendent.
6. The cost of sending decrepite to the
Home must be borne by the persons by whom they are
sent. No charge will be made for maintaining decrepit
perçons in the Home, but if it is found that within
one month of admission an inmate is fit for discharge
L32
the followinFr procedure will be adonted:-
(i) If in the opinion cf the Superintendent
such inmate is fit for such labour as he was formerly
employed on, he will he given the option of returning
to India or (subject to his former employer's consent)
of returning to 8uch former employer.
(ii) If in the opinion of the Superintendent
such inmate is not fit for labour but is able to
return to India and is desirous of doing so, he will
be sent back to India.
(iii) In the above cases, the cost of
repatriation or of sending an inmate back to his
former employer.
7. If it is found necessary to detain a
decrepit person in the Home for more than a month,
and it is subsequently decided to repatriate him,
the cost of repatriation will in such cases be borne
by the State.
8. The Indian Immigration Committee may
make by-laws not inconsistent with these rules or
with the provision of the Labour Code for the
conduct and duties of officers and servants connected
with the Home, for admission and discharge of patients,
and as to their food and clothing, and otherwise
generally for the management of the Home and control
of the inmates of the Rome and its officers.
Icziala Lumpur,
22nd October 1913.
ES. Hose
for Indian Immigration Committee
Source: N.E. Marjoribanke and A.IC.G. Marakkayar:
eport on Indian Labour nigratin to Ceylon
and Malaya.
Appendix B
FORM G. (Section ko)
CONThACT OF INMIGRANT FOR FIXEI TERM OF 600 DAYS.
day of
A Contract made the
19
Ordinanc e
under "The Indian Immigration
Enactments
19
,"between
hereunder described and hereinafter called "the 1abourer'
o
the one part1 and hereinafter called t'the employer"
(which term shall include his executors, administre tors
and assigns) of other part:
*(WHEREAS the fo1lowin
by the employer on behalf o
sums have been expended
the labourer, that is to
say: -
rupees equivalent to
The sum o
dollars for passage money and cash advances paid to the
labourer and the sum of
rupees equivalent to
dollars for the passage money of
an adult dependent on the
labourer making
acknowledge.)
dollars as the labourer doth hereby
NOW these presents witness as followa:-
1. The labourer will labour for the emloyer
in the
Se t tienient
State
t the iFork of
of
from the date hereof until he has done six hundred days' 'ork.
a. The employer will pay to the labourer without
any deduction except as hereinafter mentioned wages payable
monthly on or before the fifteenth day of the month following
the month in which they were earned at the rate of
for each day's work (such sum of
annas
annas being payable in
* Omit the words in brackets when there has been no payment
of pessage money or advances.
"J,'
'J,'
the currency of the
Straits
ett1ernents
according to
the rate of exchange fixed fror time to time by the
Governor in GoUflcil)
esident-Genera1
and rations nccorr1in
prescribed scale, subject to the fol1owin
to the
conditions:-
(J_) The Superintendent shall have power in
his discretion at the reouest of the
labourer to grant exemption from the
supply of rations according to the
prescribed scale and to ori3er in lieu
thereof the daily issue of such labourer
of a ration ticket exchangeable for food
stuffs to the value of two annas or the
daily payment to euch labourer of the
equivalent of two annas in cash.
(2) iio ration ticket or cash in lieu of
rations shall be issued to a labourer
except in respect of a working day aid
the value of all rations issued to the
labourer in respect of a day on which
be does not perform a day's rork may be
deducted from the wages due to him.
(3) Children between 12 and 15 years of are
living with and dependent on a ste tute
immigrant shall if they labour receive
wages at not less than three-quarters
of the minimum rate for adult females
and full rations according to the
prescribed Scale.
(4) Children under 12 years of age living
with and dependent on a statute immigrant
shall Jf they labour receive wages at
not less than one-half of the minimum
rate for adult females and three-civarter
rations according to the prescribed sc]e.
(5) Children under 10 years of age living with
and dependent on a statute inwiigrant
shall receive rations at the rate of
one-third of the prescribec3 scale for
adults. Provided that the employer shall
be entitled to recover from the immigrant
by monthly deductions from his wages the
cost of rations for any number of children
in excess of three.
3. The labourer shall not be bound to labour
for more than six days in any week or for more than
twenty days in any calendar month or for more than six
consecutive hours or except as hereinafter mentioned for
more than nine hours in all in any one day but il the
labourer at the request of the eniployer works more
than nine hours in any day the employer will pay the
labourer Thr such extra work at the rate of
two cents
one-eighteenth part of the waos prescribed for a
work in the preceding dauBe for each half-hour of
overtime work. Provided that the labourer when employec
exclusively in factory work shall be bound when reauired
by the employer in case of nee8 to work for any time
not exceeding three hours in any one day over and above
the nine hours abovenentioned and shall receive for
such extra-work the extra pay for each half-hour. And
provided that the employer may reouire from the Jabourer
without pay over and above the work which be is bottn
to perform as aforesaid any reasonable and customary
labour for the care of animals the cleaning and maintenance
of machinery and the observance of usual sanitary regulrtions.
The above-mentioned sum of
dollars being the anount paid by the employer for the
passage money of an adult dependent on the labourer may
be recovered by the employer by monthly deãuctions from
the wages of the labourer. Provided that no euch deduction
shall be made from the wapes earned during the first 150
days of the contract an that at no time shall the Thdi'ction
in any one month be so great as to reduce the sum actually
received as wages by the labourer to an amount of less
than*
cents per working day toether
with rations in accordance yrith the prescribed scale,
The labourer 'nay at any time redeem hi'tse]f
5
from the contract by paying to the employer the value
of the unexpired portion thereof calculated at the rate
of two dollars for every thirty days' work which the
labourer is at the time bound to do under the contract
or the sum of ten dollars whichever sum shall be the
greater (+together with the said aunt of
dollars due for passare money and advances and so iiuch
(if any) o the said sum o
dollars due for the passae r'toney of
the said adult dependent as shall not have been repaid).
In no case shall the value of the unexpired portion of
the contract be less then ten dollars and the labourer
shall in no case be compelled to remain on the
place
:t:;loyment fo
more than three years.
*TwelVe cents in the case of an adult male or eight
cents in the cases of an adult female or boy under 18
years of age.
+To be omitted where no advances nor passare money
are due.
-p"JI
6. The expression tia day's worktt means either
work for a.day of nine hours of (at the option of the
ep1oyer) a ta&c which has been as5igne as being
equivalent to such work.
In witness whereot the p.rties heve)
signed their naines the day and year above
)
)
written.
DESCRIPTION OF LABOUI2ER.
Naine
Re1igI.on and hace of abodeTGeneral de:Caste(if any)!
in India
:crition and
Father's
1Naie
distinctive
arks
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
Endorsement to be made by the superintendent:I hereby certify that ]T bave personally explained
this contract to the said
and
have ascertained that he is fully aware of the terms thereof,
I also certify that the parties have signed thi6 contract
in my presence.
s igned
Superintendent of Irnmirants.
Note:- In the case of a contract for a definite
term of less than 60o days the above form must be vtried
accordingly.
PRESOEEIBED SCALE 0F RATIONS
Ri c e
..
..
Pahl
a.
..
...
Fi8h
Ghee or Oil
Salt
Sal t
..
..
..
..
..
2
.. a
e.
.
u.
:L3
.
i
lbs. per day
u
per month
i
T,
Ìt
ti
i
II
.i.
:i_
Tu e e rations shall be issued weekly or otherwise
ae approved by the Superinten len t.
Source: CW.O
Parr: Report of the Commission Appointed to
Enquire into the Conditions of Indentured Labour
in the Federated Malay States 1910.
Aeudix C.
KAI1ANY' S LICENCE TC RECPUIT I
CUì FOP
fricyMEHT
IN TilE STRAITS ETTLENTS, F.h.S., Ath) TIU
PROTECTED STATES 0E' JCHOflE, IZZDH AID KLJTTLN.
(ola 1orm)
No..
ofl9
___________________, described hereiiner, is hereby
authorisedto recruit labourers in the Nadra8 Presidency
oÍ India for a period of
employment at
to
is hereunder specified.
from
for
on such rork as
Labourers co11ecter' uMer the authority of
the lIcence are not, except with the consent of the
Committee's Agent in India to be transferred to any
other kangany or recruiter, nor are coolies collected
under the authority of a-iy other licence or by any
person not holding a licence to be accepted by the
holder of this licence without previous reference to
the Committee's 1gent. Any infrinerient of this regulation
will i'ender the licence liable to be cancelled.
DESCRIPTIVE flOLL C! ITGANY
lcangany' Father' sAge NationaJ.ityo1ourHei_Distin-VillageNumher
naine
name
(caste)
Feetlnchesguish- taluk, laboure
ing
disauthorinrks trict
to
nesrectrecruit
ra liwav
station
-.-.-
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The Kangany iz to
receive a recruiting
Commission of
p lo ye r
Indian Immigration
Office
Penang,
Dated
19
Chairman, Immigration Coinnittee,
superintendent of Immigrants,
Straits settlements ? 1J.S,
TERMS OF !PLOYMENT.
The employer will pay to all labourers recruited under this
4;-
authoxity wages at a rate not less tMn cents
rer iot' r 'n1t
per day, or dollar8
niales, nor less than cents
per
or
per rianth, fir fer1es. io
dollars
eLy 2ebourer
deduc;ion ha12 be made from the "rares
on account of any expenses incurreil b hri or en his
behalf before bis arrival at the place ø' erp1oyuent oi
on account of any assessmeit levied for thc purpose of
defraying such expenses.
Plac e
Da te
inployer.
ßource: N.E. Marjoribanks end A..G. Narkkyar:eort
on Indian Labour DiigratF'ir' to Ceylon and l4alaya.
k39
Ap4ix
Kananys Licence to iecruit Labour or p1oyent in tile Straits
Settlements, F.i.S., an the Protected States of Johore, ICedah and
¡elarttan.
Otew
Form)
'ERMS CF
1PLOYMENT
will L
, described
herein, is hereby
authorized
pay to all labourers
to recruit labourers in the
un5er the authority of recruited under this
for a
the Ciovts. oZ the Strai teauthority wa:es at a
district of
Settlements C Federated rate not loss than con tsperiod of
to
I:alay States.
iDer day, or from
dollars
per for eniplorment at
KàNGANY 'S LICENCE
month, for adult males on such work as is hereunder
specified.
nor less than cents
To recruit Labour for
DESCIPTICN OF WORK
per
day,
or
]miploymnent in the StraitE Idollars
per
Settlements, Federated m onth, for adult females.LLBO1IR OFFICE, PENNG
Malay States, & the
deductions shall be
19
Protected State of Johor No
Deputy Controller of Labour,
ade
from
the
wages
at'
Kedah, Ferlis Kalantan. ny labourer on account FJLS. Deputy Superintendent
No.
of any expenses inof Immigrants, S.S., &
of 19
Place of employment
curred by him or on his Secretary Immigration
District
or advance made
Committee.
State
Note:- Labourers collected
to hirn before bis
Issued br the
Immigration Committee
The eip1OyeD
I
I
behalf1
Ka' s name
Employer's name
rrival at the place of under the authority of this
ÇLicence are not, except with
ccount of any assess- the consent of the Corn-.
employment or on
eut levied for the
nittees agent in India, to
be transferred to any other
angany or recruiter, nor
uch expenses.
The cangany is to re labourers collected
ecaive a recruiting
nder the authority of an
omission of
ther licence or by any
ace
erzen not holding a licence
ate
o be accepted by the holder
nployer
f. this licence without
re'wious
reference to the
ig3ature of Kangaiy,
r right thumb impress- oittee1s Agent4 Any
urpose of defraying
ion
DESCRIPTIVE ROLL OF KLTGANY
Licence No.
Name
Father1s naine
Caste
A.ge
Sex
igh t
ne
}atks
Village
Taluk
Di s tric t
post office
Railway station
Distance from village to station
Number of labourers
I hereby certify that the
person here described has been
actually employed by me as
for a period of
Place
a te
ployer
._ A
ert&Lx
C1 (cnt'd)
infringement of this
reu1ation will render
the licence liable to be
canc
cl.
Source: NE. Narjoribanks an
A.K.G. Marakkayar: Report on Indian Labour
iting to Ceylon and Tal
Appendix D
GROSS NATIONAL PIODUCT BY ORIGIN IN l99
(MILLION )
Rubber
Mining
Other Agriculture and forestry
All other activities
GrOss nation income
+2O
250
8ko
J, 825
3,335
Source: The Economic Developnt of Malya, Report
of a Mission organized by the tnternational
Bank for Reconstruction and Development
at the request of the Governments of the
Federation of Malaya, the Crown Colony of
Singapore and the United Kingdom, The Johns
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1955, p.1k.
kk2
Appendix E
PRINCIPAL OCCUPATIONS OF INDIANS IN ThE STRAITS
SETTLEM;NTS II 1933. TOGEThER t'JITh MALAYS A) CHINESE.
Occupation
Indians Malays Chines
Labourers in rubber cl'] tiva tion
18,389
1,353
19,397
541
17,758
1,050
lLf 9
35
4.2
836
88
259
1,606
2,509
1,776
6,855
99
i,68o
5,653
5,358
286
4,257
2,925
k,399
1,732
669
2,170
2l,9f9
20,901
29,059
887
1,431
3
1,938
233
299
7,323
2,781
36,731
294
1,789
318
1,5031 20,621
3,k28 15,961
378 i
670
Labourers in coconut cultivation
Railway locomotive drivers, firemen
nd cleaners
Railway labourers & other railway
workers
Drivers, conductors & cleaners of
motor cars & trams
Dock labourers
Messengers & peons
Proprietors & Managers of Business
(Coizmerce, Finance & Insurance)
Salesmen, shop assistants, etc,
Street Vendors & peddlers
Money-lenders, Pawn-brokers &
money-changers
Police-other ranks
Persons engaged in personal service
(including clubs, hotels, etc.)
Clerks, offioe assistants1 typists,
etc.
Labourers(General & indeterminate)
Gate keepers & Watchmen
Lource: S. Nanjundan, Indians in Malayan Economy,
New Dehli, Government f India Press,
1951, p.16.
k4
ppendix F
PRIrICIPAL OCCUPATIONS OF INDIANS IN ThE
FEflATD NALkY SThTES IN 1931, TOGETHER 7ITh
flAIMS lUID CHINES2.
Oc cuìa tjon
Indians I1a1ays
Rice planters
1,892 89,122
Labourers in rubber cultivation
131,099 1i8,LFk3
Labourers in Coconut cultivation
8,010 lO,2kf
Rearers of poultry and livestock
1,750 6,386
labourers in tin-mining
k,622 1,008
echanics and fitters
556
1,370
Railway locomotive, drivers, firemen
nd cleaners
761
128
Railway labourers & other railway
workers
k09
5,236
Drivers, conductors & cleaners of
motor-cars & trams
f,628
2,792
Proprietors & Managers of usiness
k,k28 1,0k9
(Commerce, Finance & Insurance)
6k6
Salesmen, shop-assistants, etc.
3,790
Street Vendors & peddlers
3,005
91?
Money-lenders, pawn-brokers & money
969
changers
Police-other ranks
2,011 2,572
Persons engaged in personal service
(including clubs, hotels, etc.)
13,719 5,951
Clerks, Office assistants, typists,
3,106 1,610
etc.
170
2,f23
Bullock-Cart owners & drivers
Govt., municipal, police & army
758
838
Officers & army other ranks
25,317 k,k77
Labourers(general & indeterminate)
Li.57
3,069
Gatekeepers & Watcbnten
Source: S. Nanjundan Indianin Maay.n Eccnom, New
Delhi, Goveriment of Indà reslI, p.1G.
Chinese
1,038
100,789
1,256
2,Zfk9
70,70LF
3,705
111
k50
,6k6
16,89k
l6,k71
16,k71
ikk
158
28,Okk
7,732
1f57
80
16,1Lf6
730