British Economic Development in South East Asia, 1880–1939, Volume 3: The Building Blocks of Development: Governance, Transport and Communications, and Human and Financial Capital

475 Pages·2016·3.106 MB·English

by  David Sunderland (editor)

BRITISH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN
SOUTH EAST ASIA, 1880–1939
CONTENTS OF THE EDITION
volume 1
General Introduction
Agriculture
volume 2
Mining, Trade and Industry
volume 3
Th e Building Blocks of Development: Governance, Transport and
Communications, and Human and Financial Capital
Index
BRITISH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN
SOUTH EAST ASIA, 1880–1939
Volume 3
Th e Building Blocks of Development: Governance, Transport and
Communications, and Human and Financial Capital
Edited by
David Sunderland
First published 2014 by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited
Published 2016 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© Taylor & Francis 2014
© Editorial material David Sunderland 2014
To the best of the Publisher’s knowledge every eff ort has been made to contact
relevant copyright holders and to clear any relevant copyright issues. 
Any omissions that come to their attention will be remedied in future editions.
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages.
No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or
by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orinany information storage
or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the pub lishers.
Notice :
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks , and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
british library cataloguing in publication data
British economic development in South East Asia, 1880–1939.
1. Great Britain – Commerce – Southeast Asia – History – 19th century – Sources.
2. Great Britain – Commerce – Southeast Asia – History – 20th century – Sources.
3. Southeast Asia – Commerce – Great Britain – History – 19th century – Sources.
4. Southeast Asia – Commerce – Great Britain – History – 20th century – Sources.
5. Economic development – Southeast Asia – History – 19th century – Sources.
6. Economic development – Southeast Asia – History – 20th century – Sources.
7. Agriculture – Economic aspects – Southeast Asia – History – 19th century –
Sources. 8. Agriculture – Economic aspects – Southeast Asia – History – 20th
century – Sources. 9. Great Britain – Colonies – Asia – Economic policy – Sources.
I. Sunderland, David, 1958– editor of compilation.
330.9’5904-dc23
ISBN-13: 978-1-84893-488-7 (set)
Typeset by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited
CONTENTS
Governance 1
Anon., Report on the Working of the Municipalities of British Burma for
the Year 1882–83 (1883) 7
Transport and Communications 27
L. Wray Jr, Notes on Perak with a Sketch of its Vegetable, Animal and
Mineral Products (1886), extract 39
Anon., Fift y Years of Railways in Malaya, 1885–1935 (1935), extract 43
C. S. Alexander, British Malaya: Malayan Statistics (1928), extract 71
K. Nankivell, A Report on Highways (1936), extract 77
Anon., ‘A Pioneer Shipping Agency. History of Mansfi eld & Co.’, Th e
Singapore Free Press Exhibition Supplement, 2 January 1932 (1932),
extract 87
Anon., ‘Th e British India Steam Navigation Company Mail and Indian
Immigration Contract, 1923’ (1923), extract 91
Anon., Report of the Commission on the Eastern Shipping or Straits
Homeward Conference as Aff ecting the Trade of the Colony (1902),
extract 99
Anon., ‘Report on the Development and Progress of Civil Aviation in
Malaya up to and including the Year 1937’ (1937), extract 117
Anon., ‘Growth of the Postal Service. Illuminating Facts and Figures’,
Th e Singapore Free Press Exhibition Supplement, 2 January 1932
(1932), extract 127
Human Capital 133
C. A. Vlieland, British Malaya: A Report on the 1931 Census (1932),
extract 141
C. S Alexander, British Malaya: Malayan Statistics (1928), extract 163
P. N. Gerrard, On the Hygienic Management of Labour in the Tropics.
An Essay (1913), extract 169
N. E. Marjoribanks and A. K. G. Marakkayar, Report on Indian Labour
Emigrating to Ceylon and Malaya (1917), extract 183
Anon., ‘Indians in Malaya’ (1926), extract 213
W. L. Blythe, Methods and Conditions of Employment of Chinese Labour
in the Federated Malay States (1938), extract 219
vi British Economic Development in South East Asia, 1880–1939: Volume 3
Governor to British North Borneo Company, 21 December 1923
(1923), extract 281
Anon., Proceedings and Report of the Commission Appointed to Inquire into
the Cause of the Present Housing Diffi culties in Singapore, Volume 1
(1918), extract 287
Anon., ‘Memorandum Regarding the Provision of Housing and Hospital
Accommodation for Labour in Burma’ (1920), extract 327
Financial Capital 337
Straits Settlements Government Loan. Issue of £4 per cent. Five Year
Convertible Bonds Suffi cient to Raise £5,000,000. Authorised by
Ordinance No. 4 of 1907 (1907) 345
Anon., Average Prices, Declared Trade Values, Exchange and Currency,
Volume and Average Volume of Imports and Exports, Market Prices
and Cost of Living (1930), extract 353
Anon., Average Prices, Declared Trade Values, Exchange and Currency,
Volume and Average Volume of Imports and Exports, Market Prices
and Cost of Living (1939), extract 357
J. O. Anthonisz, Currency Reform in the Straits Settlements (1915),
extract 359
R. L. German, Handbook to British Malaya (1927), extract 381
W. T. Cherry, Elementary Business Practice in the Straits
Settlements and Federated Malay States. With Questions and
Examples (1915), extract 387
C. S. Alexander, British Malaya: Malayan Statistics (1928), extract 403
C. F. Strickland., Report on Co-operation in Malaya (1929), extract 407
Editorial Notes 421
List of Sources 427
Index 429
GOVERNANCE
Modes of Government
As discussed in the General Introduction, administrative methods varied from
country to country. Th e Straits Settlements was a Crown colony and admin-
istered by a Governor, an Executive Council and a Legislative Council. Th e
Executive Council comprised senior offi cials and local notables and had to be
consulted by the Governor on all important matters, and, if its advice was not
followed, this fact had to be reported to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Th e Legislative Council, meanwhile, had fi ve European members, three Chi-
nese, one Indian, one Malay and one Eurasian. Apart from the two Europeans
appointed by the British members of the two Chambers of Commerce, all were
nominated by the Governor. Elections were unfeasible given that the majority
of the Chinese and Indian populations were migrants and there was a fear that
democracy would result a Council dominated by the Chinese, thought to be
more politically mature than the other races, and by members of the Malayan
aristocracy. Th e Council, again, had to be consulted on all issues, though the
Governor had the casting vote on all the decisions made.1
In the FMS prior to the creation of the Federation, the States were adminis-
tered by State Councils, which comprised the local Sultan, who assumed the role
of President, the British Resident and later other British offi cials, Malay Chiefs
and representatives of the British, Chinese and Indian communities. Th e Resi-
dent and other offi cials were appointed by the Governor of the Straits Settlements
and provided the Sultan and State Council with ‘advice’ that had to be followed
unless it involved cultural or religious matters. Aft er 1896 and federation, a new
government structure was introduced. Overall control was placed in the hands
of the Governor of the Straits Settlements, who became High Commissioner
and appointed a Resident General to supervise the administration of the States.
Th e Resident General, in turn, was assisted by a staff of Federal Offi cers, each of
whom concentrated on an aspect of governance, such as agriculture, mining etc.
State decisions were thus increasingly made by the Resident General and Federal
Offi cers and the infl uence of Residents and State Councils diminished.2
– 1 –
2 British Economic Development in South East Asia, 1880–1939: Volume 3
In both the Straits and the FMS, day-to-day administration was undertaken
by civil servants; 242 in 1919, 270 in 1929 and 213 in 1935. Th e majority were
British; in 1904 Chinese, Indians and Eurasians were specifi cally prohibited
from joining the civil service and there were relatively few Malays, most of whom
occupied lowly positions. Recruitment was via the Colonial Offi ce. Candidates
for posts across the Empire chose the territories in which they wished to serve
and then sat an examination; those who attained the highest scores were sent to
their fi rst choice, the others to their second or third preferences and all could be
dismissed aft er six months if found to be ‘unsuitable’. Th ose arriving in Malaya
had invariably attained relatively low marks in the exam; among Far Eastern can-
didates Ceylon was the favoured posting, followed by Hong Kong. Th ey thus
tended to be relatively ineffi cient and from the less prestigious public schools and
Oxbridge colleges, though surprisingly few were dismissed during their proba-
tionary period. Most spent their entire careers in Malaya. To minimize transfers,
which were thought to disturb the esprit de corps and the service’s profi ciency in
the Malayan language, offi cers were paid high salaries and enjoyed an enviable
standard of living; every household had a minimum of three servants and all sta-
tions off ered cricket, football, golf, tennis and polo facilities, plus an active social
life. From the First World War, they were permitted and indeed encouraged to
bring out their wives and younger children, who were believed to have a civilizing
infl uence, and single men oft en formed ‘relationships’ and had children with local
Malay or Indian women. Given their social backgrounds and long service, they
were highly suspicious of European planters and businessmen, who usually came
from a lower social class, extremely sympathetic to the local Malayan community,
whose values they believed were similar to their own, and were relatively honest,
though many had fi nancial interests in local tin and rubber companies.3
Elsewhere in South East Asia, an array of administrative systems was adopted.
As discussed in the General Introduction, Burma until 1937 was a province of
India, and Sarawak was governed by the Brooke family, who operated two parallel
systems of administration. Indigenous chiefs were appointed to apply traditional
law and levy taxes and District Offi cers and Regional Residents were recruited
from the UK to introduce Western systems of justice and land ownership and
to monitor the actions of the chiefs. Brunei from 1906 was under the control of
a Resident, who took all executive decisions, rubber stamped by a State Coun-
cil, and appointed State and District Offi cers and Penghulus (headmen). British
North Borneo, meanwhile, was administered by a Governor, appointed by the
Court of Directors of the British North Borneo Company, who was advised by
a Legislative Council comprising nine offi cial and fi ve unoffi cial members. On
the ground, administration was in the hands of Residents, each of whom was
in charge of one of four residencies, each divided into nineteen districts super-
vised by Magistrates-in-Charge and later by District Offi cers and their deputies.
Governance 3
‘Native aff airs’ were conducted by Governor appointed chiefs and village head-
men chosen by District Offi cers with the approval of the relevant Resident.4
Public Expenditure
In comparison with the rest of South East Asia, per capita public expenditure
in Malaya was relatively high. Per capita spending in 1910 was US$13 in the
FMS (US$28 in 1938), US$6 in the Straits (US$17 in 1938) and US$5 (US$10
1938) in the UFMS, as compared to US$1 in French Indo-China (US$2 1938),
US$2 in the Dutch East Indies (US$4 1938) and US$3 in Siam (US$4 1938).
All the Malayan territories generally ran large budgetary surpluses, partly due
the Colonial Offi ce requirement that the Currency Board hold huge balances in
the UK and the Straits’ decision to place a proportion of opium revenue in an
Opium Revenue Replacement Fund, which in 1937 held $59m. Th e fi nances of
the FMS, however, temporarily tipped into defi cit in the early 1930s and declin-
ing revenues from opium sales and the absence of export duties caused Singapore
to suff er large and continuous defi cits aft er 1925.5
From the 1880s to the early 1930s, government funds were largely spent on
infrastructure, which in the FMS absorbed 40 per cent of revenues in the early
1920s, half of which fi nanced the building of railways and the remainder the con-
struction of roads and public buildings. Th ereaft er, slow economic growth and less
need for new infrastructure caused capital spending to fall in 1935 to less than
10 per cent in the FMS and 13 per cent in the Straits. Th e vast proportion of the
remaining revenues was expended on administration, which in the early 1930s
consumed 34 per cent of the FMS budget and between 28 per cent and 37 per
cent of that of the Straits, and, in the case of the FMS, in the servicing of its $65m
(1938) public debt, largely comprising loans raised in London, which devoured
30 per cent of its income. Comparatively little was spent on health and education,
in the early 1930s respectively 15 and 5 per cent in the FMS and 8 per cent and 4
per cent in the Straits. Th e State expected mines and plantations to provide basic
health care, few Indian and Chinese migrants brought their families to the coun-
try, there was little demand for education from Malays and there was a fear that
Western schooling would disrupt traditional Malay society.6
Public expenditure in British North Borneo in 1938 stood at $2,087m,
almost half of which was spent on administration, 7 per cent on railways and
a further 11 per cent on other capital expenditure. Burma expended US$3m
in 1938, up from US$2m in 1910. From the late nineteenth century to 1937,
when it attained fi nancial autonomy, between 32 and 57 per cent of its annual
revenues were sent to the Indian government, a subvention that represented 3.6
to 8.4 per cent of its Net National Product (1901/2–1931/2) and was much
criticized for depriving the country of much needed funds. Of its other income,