Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
On the Margin of CapitalismPeople and Development in
Mukim Plentong, lahar, Malaysia
Patrick Guinness
S INGAPORE
OX FORD UN IVE RS ITY PR ESSOXFORD NEW YORK
199 2
Contents
Preface vAcknoto ledgements VIITables XlM aps XIIPlates XlllAbbreviations and Glossary XIVA Note on Data S ources XVlltVelghts, M easures, and Currencies XVlll
1. The Growth of Capital in Mukim Plentong 1Early History of Southern Johor 1Colonial Control and Capitalist Expansion 6The Japanese Occupation 14Re-establishment of Colonial Capital 15Independence and State Capitalism 23
2. Industrial Growth in Pasir Gudang 32State Investment in the Port and Industrial Estate 33Growth ofJohor Port 36Growth of Pasir Gudang Industrial Estate 38Administration of Pasir Gudang 45
3. The Industrial Workforce 49Race 55Contract Workers 59Workers ' Response 63Housing for Workers 66Conclusion 70
4. O n the Industrial Margin: Chinese New Villages 72Pre-industrial Stagnation 72Burgeoning Capitalism in Masai 77Diversification of the Workforce 86Socio-economic Polarization 89Raci:~.1 Segregation 94Class and Race in Masai and Plentong 104
X C O N T E N T S
5. On the Industrial Margin: Malay Kampongs 113Pre-industrial Kampong Society 113Post-l 972 Industrial Era 118Class and Race in the Kampongs 135Kampongs in an Industrial Socie ty 142
6. On the Industrial M a r gin: A FELDA ResettlementScheme 148The Industrial Period 149A FELDA Proletariat 156The Neighbouring Squatter Community 165Emerging Class Relations 167
7. Urban Transformations: Plantations to H ousin g Estates 171Plantation Agriculture 171T he Industrial Impact on the Plantations 176The Housing Boom 177Inform al Sector Land Use 187People and the State 189
8. People and Development in M ukim Plentong 193Industrial D evelopment 193Population Growth and Community Change 195Workers and Their Households 198Class Conflict 200Race Relations 203
Bibliography 206Index 213
Tables
1.1 Ethnic Composition of the Estate and General Populationof Pasir Gudang District (M ukim Plentong), 1921 9
1.2 Population of Pasir Gudang District (M ukirn Plentong) 101.3 We ekly Fishing Trade in Kampung Pasir Putih, 1953 191.4 Employment of Kampung Pasir Putih Population, 1953 221.5 Population of Mukim Plentong, 1947 and 1957 232.1 Agricultural Production of johor 332.2 Production Incentives Offered to Pasir Gudang Firms,
1988 352.3 T raffic through johor Port, 1977-1987 362.4 T ypes of Cargo Handled at j ohor Port, 1977-1987 3 72.5 Operating Manufacturing Firms in Pasir Gudang,
1977-1988 392.6 Foreign Equity in Pasir Gudang Manufacturing Firms 402.7 Distribution of Industrial Equity, 1985 412.8 Distribution of Equity in Pasir Gudang Firms 422.9 Employers Expressing Dissatisfaction with Pasir Gudang
Facilities and Services 473.1 Pasir Gudang Labour Force 503.2 Employment in Industrial Sectors, Pasir Gudang,
1982-1988 513.3 Age Structure of Pasir Gudang Workforce, 1987/8 533.4 Employment Levels of Pasir Gudang Permanent Labour
Force, 1985 and 1987/8 543.5 Monthly Income per Worker, Pasir Gudang, 1987/8 553.6 Area of Origin of Pasir Gudang Workforce 563.7 Employment Levels by Race, Pasir Gudang 563.8 Education of Workforce, 1987/8 5 73.9 Racial Composition of Workforce, Pasir Gudang, 1987/8 583.10 Work Tendered by MSE, 1984-1987 603.11 Racial Composition of Pasir Gudang Residents 694.1 T ype s of Sh ophouse Enterprises in Various T owns 834.2 T ype and Ownership of Masai Firms, 1987 844.3 Employment Status of Masai Workforce, 1987 864.4 Masai Workforce by Sector and Gender, 1987 8 7
XII
4 .5
4.64.74.84 .94.105.15.2
5.35.4
5.55.65.75.8
6.16.26.36.47.1
7.27.37.47.57.6
T ABLES
O ccu pations of Masai Household Heads and T otalWorkforce, 1987G ender Composition of Workforce by SectorEmployment of Masai Workforce by SectorAge Structure of Masai PopulationComposition of Masai Household sPopulation G rowth in M asai and Plentong, 1970- 198 7Population of Kampongs, 197 1Origin of Land Acquired for Pasir Gudang Industri alEstate
Kampong Population s, 1971-1987Employm ent of Kampung Pasir Putih Income Earne rs,1987Wages of Kampung Pasir Putih Lab our Force, 1987U nemployed in Kampung Pa sir Pu tih , 1987Wages of Male Workers in Kampung Pasir PutihFishing Techniques of Kampung Pasir Putih Residents,1987
Previou s O ff-farm Employme nt of Caha ya Barn ResidentsPrimary Employm ent of Cah aya Barn Residents, 1987Occupation of Settlers' Children Living Away, 1987Income from Rubber Smallholdings, June 1987Plantations Acquired in 1972 for the Pasir GudangIndustrial EstatePlantations in East Mukim Plenton g, 1978Plantations in Eas t Mukim Plenton g, 1986Plantation Resident Population , 1976 an d 1980Housing Estates in Mukim Plen tongPopulation of Other Squatter Settl em ents, M ukimPlentong
Maps
888890909198
11 7
118124
128128129130
131150151152159
172172174177183
188
1.1 Mukim Plentong4.1 Masai4.2 Plentong5.1 Kampung Pasir Putih7.1 Mukim Plentong: Land Use , 19747.2 M ukim Plentong: Land Use, 1984
xx7475
114173178
Plates
Between pages 92 and 93
1 T own centre, Pasir Gudang2 FELDA palm oil mill, Pasir Gudang3 Blocks of flats , Pasir Gudang4 Malay, Chinese, and Indian sho phouses, Pasir Gudang5 Engineering worksho ps utilizing the road in Taman Masai6 MARA (M alay) shophouses, Masai7 Tamil school, Masai8 Chinese carrying their temple god around Plentong9 Malay kompang group performing at a wedding in Plentong
10 Kampung Sungai Rinting squatter settlement11 Kampung Senibong, a fishing village12 Fishing platforms, Kampung Pasir Putih13 Malay shipyard, Kampung Pasir Putih14 Rubber smallho lding, Kampung Sungai Tengkorak15 T aman johor jaya, a ma ssive urban centre16 Housing development billbo ard along the main highway
1The Growth of Capital
Mukim Plentong
.In
THE strong growth of the M alaysian economy in recent years has largelystemmed from the investment of foreign capital, attracted by favourableconditions gua ranteed by a stable govern ment. But the provision ofcheap labour and ample land to these investors has not nec essarily beento the ad vantage of local residents, despite government rhetoric. Thisstudy will look at the consequences of industrial expansion in the southernmost tip of Peninsular M alaysia where manufacturing activities haveboth competed and co-operated with those established in nearbySingapo re. As will become clear in th is chapter , the close associationwith Singapore has a long history. Capital from Singapore was one ofth e driving forces of the eco nomic expa nsion within j ohor, and the dealings of th e M alay rulers of j ohor with Singapore Chinese established thepatterns of class and race relation s with in the state.
Early History of Southern Johor
T he southe rn coasts of johor were not associated with centu ries ofM alay settleme nt. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Malayactivities were centred further south on the island of Riau , where firstindigenous orang laue (sea peoples) and then Bugis from the island ofSulawesi established supremacy. But their contact with the southe rncoast of johor was minimal. At most, orang laut, many of whom lived bypiracy and raiding and who formed the naval str ength of the johor-RiauSultanate before 1760, ma y have had temporary bases on and off thiscoast. However, johor remained largely uninhabited until the 1840s(T rocki, 1979: 75). In a circumnavigation of Singapore Island in 1825 ,Crawfurd rep orted that along the entire southern coast of johor ' thecountry is one dreary forest with out human habitation or apparently themarks of there ever having existed an y'. All was jungle and swamp.apartfrom a few 'wretched and tempora ry' woodcutters' huts on Pulau Ubinand a few small villages up the joh or River (Crawfurd, 1825 , quoted inTrocki, 1979: 42-3).
T he settlement and development of Mukim Plentong dates to the1840s. Gutta-percha, a latex-like substance harvested for years by
2 ON T HE .\ I A R G I N O F C A P ITA LI S M
Malays in Singapore, was recognized by the Eu ropean powers in 184 3as having potential for manufacturing surgical and chemical appa ratusand a few years later was found to be ideal for protecting underwatercabl es (T rocki, 1979: 76) . T he forests of johor suddenly became aprized source of gutta-percha. By 1848 Temenggong ' Ibrahim, theMalay ruler of Singapore and joh or, had not only asserted a monopolyon the trading of gurta-percha but was dispatching gangs of labou rers tofell the forest s of johor for it. Conspicuou s among the se were groups ofaborigines, orang benua and orang biduanda kallang, 'T hese were under aMalay official known as a jenang who employed them in collecting guttapercha, dammar, rattan, gharuwood , ebon y, chandan, and wax . Inreturn, they were given rice, sago, and a little cloth.' (T rocki, 1979: 79.)The jenang, also known as pengulu, were Malays from Singapore postedat various river mouths to ensure monopolies on trade with orang benua.Incoming traders were required to visit the pengulu as 'head of the river' .The system was exploitative of both forests and people. Between 1844and 1848, 270 ,000 trees were estimated to have been cut down in [ohor,with no attempt made to plant new trees, so that Logan (1848: 532-3,quoted in Trocki, 1979: 88 ) wrote, 'T he imports [of gutta-percha] fromjohor have greatly diminished since last year. The tree in many districtshas become so scarce that the laban obtained does not repay the timeconsumed in searching for it. ' The prices of jungle produce paid to theorang benua were fixed by the pengulu at anything from 100 to 400 percent below Singapore market price while the goods sold to forest peoplewere priced at anything from 100 to 400 per cent above their value inSingapore (T rocki, 1979: 80 ) .
Ch inese S ettlement in Mukim Plentong
With the destruction of the forests , Temenggong Ibrahim turned to theChinese of Singapore both to develop johor and to finance his ailingadministration. This new initiative became possible as a result of secretsociety wars between Teochew and Hokkien Chinese residents ofSingapore. The disputes between these two dialect groups originated inthe fact that Teochews were the smallholder planters of Singapore andgenerally remained in poverty and debt to the Hokkien shopkeepers andmerchants who supplied them with provisions, capital, and credit. Manyplanters never cleared their debts with these merchants. Falling pricesfor their gambier crop, land shortage, and new land laws enabling merchants to hold title-deeds as surety for planters' debts led to increasingtensions between the two groups, represented by their respective secretsocieties. These led to Teochew leaders persuading 4,000 gambier andpepper planters to leave Singapore for the johor mainland in 1846(T rocki, 1979: 101). Thus the economic development of j ohor wasinitiated through the introduced crop of gambier.
Gambier was cultivated in Riau and Singapore before it reachedjohor. In the mid-seventeenth century, gambier production was a traditional Malay occupation in Sumatra, 00 the west coast of the Malay
T HE G R O WT H OF C A P IT A L I N M UK IM P L E N T O N G 3
Peninsula, and in \Vest Java. T he astr ingent gamb ier was used as medication and chewe d in conjunction with betel. In the eighteenth century,Chinese began to use gambier as a tanning agent. T his led in 1734-40to the Bugis leader in Riau, Daing Chelak, sett ing up a gambier andpepper plantation worked by Chinese coolies. By 1784 gambier cultivation and trade had become an imp ortant part of the ind igenous econom y in Riau , with perhaps 10,000 Chinese settled on Bentan Island(T rocki, 1979: 20). Then in 1835 Europeans recognized its worth andits cultivation spread to Singapore. By 1846 there was little land inSinga po re left uncultivated, and T eochew planters began to move on tothe [ohor mainland.
Gambier and pepper could be interc ropped. As Trocki (1979: 96)observed:
Ideally, a gamb ier plant ation was worked by about three to eight men .Accord ing to various rep orts, the acreage could have been from 50 to 250, butthe lower figure is more plausible. The main equipment in a bangsal [plant ation]was a large cauldron used for boiling the gambier leaves. After most of the liquidwas boiled off, the remainder was filtered and reboiled until it was fairly th ick.It was then poured into flat moulds and left to hard en. These were cut up intosmall cubes, wrapped, and pr epared for shipment. The dregs were used to fertilize the pepper plants.
The Chinese settlement of joh or was administered by TemenggongIbrahim and his Malay officials through documents known as suralsungai (river letters). These gave authority to individual kangchu (riverheadmen) to open plantations on the banks of the river named in thedocument, and to collect taxes , exerci se the functions of government,and control cult ivation within the river valley covered by the grant. Toadminister the settlement the kangchu constructed a large hou se near themouth of the river which was called kangkar (river foot) . As far as thegovernment was concerned, the kangchu were responsible for collectingtaxes and conducting revenue farms on opium and gambling. Theywere responsible to a Chinese kapitan (headman) stationed initially onthe Tebrau River, who was appointed by the Malay administration.However, the kangchu were also important in mediating between theindependent planters who settled around the kangkar and their creditors,the shopkeepers and merchants of Singapore and later [ohor Bahru. Bythe 1860s these merchants had gained control of the sural sungai,employing kangchu as their deputies and managers at the river site .These merchants were known as taukeh tuan sungai (river boss ), and itwas they who financed the gambier plantations, and marketed theirproduce.
The first sural sungai were issued in 1844, and by 1862 forty had beenissued over thirty-seven rivers, mostly along the johor River and thejohor Straits (T rocki, 1979: 112). Included among these were three inMukim Plentong-Lunchu, Paksi, and Buloh Besar-all issued in 1845.By 1864 there were at least thirty-four rivers opened for cultivation;about one thousand plantations were in operation, and the total
