outcome of unusual, circumstances than of established official policy and, for the most part, peasant rubber activity was unplanned and unassisted. Notwithstanding this, by 1912 peasant rubber cultivation was already well established and on its way to being the dominant peasant economic activity.
Other Peasant Agriculture
The peasant development of rubber meant that less attention was devoted to other crops, but it must be stressed that the
cultivation of rubber was not entirely exclusive of other crops. Many peasants, especially those with newly acquired tracts of land, grew rubber solely but in the great majority of cases rubber was cultivated with other crops. Therefore, at about the same time that interest in rubber was sweeping the country, coconut cultivation was also increasing in popularity, although in a less dramatic fashion. When coffee prices fell in the mid-90s, many agriculturalists had switched to coconuts and there was already 112,560 acres of coconut under cultivation in 1907, when peasant rubber development was still
in its infancy. Coconut development after this, however, was on a 33 smaller scale and in 1912 the area was estimated at 157,600 acres. The major part of the crop was grown in peasant holdings, only 30,308 acres or about twenty per cent of the total coconut acreage in 1912 being found in coconut plantations. The main area of
cultivation was Perak, which accounted for half of the Federated Malay
States acreage. Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Pahang had smaller
acreages, but whereas that in Negri Sembilan and Pahang had remained static during the six year period from 1907 to 1912, that in
Selangor had witnessed some development in the coastal districts . The coconut palm was grown in nearly every peasant holding,
33 The table below gives the breakdown of the FMS coconut area
by state .
Perak Selangor Negri Sembilan Pahang Total.
1907 57,776 21,321 18,000 15,463 112,560
1910 66,088 28,667 19,246 16,343 130,344
1911 73,120 33,355 19,584 17,000* 143,000*
1912 81,320 38,323 20,595 17,362 157,600
* approximate
usually in conjunction with other crops, but there were some areas of specialized coconut cultivation. The chief one was Lower Perak which accounted for more than a quarter of the coconut area in the Federated Malay States in 1912. Another was Kuala Selangor where
it was estimated 11,729 acres had been planted by 1910, and a 34
considerable export trade in coconut products had grown up. In
these areas the demand for land by immigrant peasants had continued to be brisk and peasants were encouraged to plant coconut not only by the nature of the land but also because of rent incentives .
However, although the administration regarded coconut as an appropriate crop for the peasantry and preferred its development to that of rubber,
it failed to provide assistance which could offset the superior returns obtainable from rubber. Even more distressingly, it failed to respond to the needs of the peasant industry. Numerous complaints had been made about the unhealthy condition of peasant holdings and
35
the need for replanting old coconut stands, yet the federal
administration, in 1906, rejected a Perak request for the appointment 36
of Malay coconut inspectors. But it had, in 1903, met the demand
of the United Planters Association, an important organization of European planters , for the appointment of a Federal Inspector of
37
Coconuts to combat the beetle pest in estates. The request for
Malay inspectors was only reluctantly acceded to after a pointed reference was made on the need to extend to peasants 'the excellent
34 AR Kuala Selangor 1910 in DO Kuala Selangor to SR Selangor,
21 February 1.91.1, HCOF 997/11 .
35 See especially, 'Memorandum on the working of legislation
regarding coconut cultivation', by Inspector of Coconuts, FMS enclosure in RG to BR Negri Sembilan, 6 August 1903, NSSF 3439/03. The government tried to improve the condition of peasant coconut
lands by using the big stick in the form of the Coconut Trees
Preservation Enactment. In Seremban, in 1899, for example, 334
notices were issued to peasants warning them to improve their holdings or face fines. AR Land Department Seremban, 1899, NSGG 1900.
36 Acting SR Perak to Federal Secretary, 15 June 1907, HCOF
877/07 .
37 Acting Secretary to RG to Acting BR Negri Sembilan, 10 September
work that has hitherto been confined to coconut plantations only'. In view of such official inertia and the counter-attraction of rubber, it is not surprising that coconut cultivation failed to develop into the major peasant activity.
Padi cultivation fared little better and its ailing condition was quickly glossed over in a few lines in the official reports, sandwiched between lengthy accounts of the meteoric rise of the Western plantation rubber industry. An exception was in the Krian district where the government had poured more than $1.5 million
into an irrigation project designed to assist agriculture. Prior to the project, padi cultivation in Krian had progressed unsteadily due to the absence of water control measures to alleviate the effects of drought and flood. The completion of the scheme was a major step in remedying this. Cultivation became much less dependent on the vagaries of weather and regular harvests became more assured. This,
in turn, provided an incentive for permanent peasant settlement, as 39 was seen by the increase in land values throughout the district. The scheme mainly affected lands already under cultivation but it
40
also led to an increase in new land alienation. By 1908 only one
of the seven mukims in the district had any considerable amount of 41
land available for alienation. Statistics of the padi area and
38 Acting SR Perak to Federal Secretary, 15 June 1907, HCOF
877/07 .
39 The value of land transfers in the district rose from 2570 to
400% between 1906 and 1908. 'Information regarding benefit
derived from Krian Irrigation Scheme', enclosure in BR Perak to RG, 3 October 1908, HCOF 1514/08.
40 Between 1903 and 1906 there were 1005 applicants for 5891
acres of padi land. In 1907 alone, there were 1343 applicants
for a total of 7077 acres. Ibid. The increase in padi land
was facilitated by the decline in sugar cultivation. This was a reversal of the process in the 1870s and 80s when sugar planters bought up large areas of land, including padi land. It was also due to a more rigid enforcement by the land offices of padi cultivation conditions. AR Perak 1907 and 19 0 8 .
41 This was Selinsing. The six other mukims were Bagan Tiang,
Tanjong Piandang, Kuala Kurau, Bagan Serai, Gunong Semanggol and Parit Buntar . The Irrigation Engineer estimated that there was a total of between 12,000 to 13,000 peasant padi holdings
in 1908. F.H.G. Caulfield to Under Secretary, Colonies, 2 October 1908, HCOF 1655/08.
production at this time tend to be informed estimates at best, but there was no dispute that the Krian padi area was the largest and most productive in the Federated Malay States .
The Krian Irrigation Scheme played an important part in keeping alive an interest in irrigated padi cultivation, at least,
in Perak, at a time when most eyes were fixed on the rubber
phenomenon. In 1908, the Annual Report of Perak described the scheme
as a gigantic success and optimistically pointed out that all the
other districts of the state had a need for the same facility. In
fact, a start at implementing a programme of small-scale irrigation works in the state appears to have been begun immediately after the
Krian work was completed. In 1906 the Perak return of irrigation
and drainage showed that more than $100,000 was spent on water-control
43
measures, benefiting an estimated 14,000 acres. This level, of
expenditure was maintained over the next few years . Some of the
works improved agricultural lands for planters but others benefited padi cultivators. The programme was encouraged by Birch who appears
to have obtained the funds by exploiting a loophole in the financial
votes. The other Residents were either less imaginative or less keen
on irrigation, and so far as can be ascertained, Negri Sembilan and Pahang spent negligible amounts on irrigation while Selangor used
42 Padi statistics were compiled from returns forwarded by
penghulus and fluctuated greatly from year to year. In the
1906-07 padi season, for example, it was estimated that 38,059 acres were cultivated producing a crop of 14,705,558
gantangs . In the following season a crop of only 8,046,873
gantangs was obtained from a cultivated area of 36,225 acres. This low figure was attributed to deliberate under-estimations by the penghulus because of the collection, for the first
time in Krian, of a zakat, a religious tithe on the produce of the land .
43 Annual returns of Irrigation and Drainage for Perak and
Selangor 1906, enclosure in Federal. Secretary to Secretary to HC , 15 February 1907 , HCOF 180/07 .
its funds for improving plantation lands .
The federal administration itself was quite unmoved by the Krian demonstration, neither was it persuaded to drop its previous
cautious attitude or to forsake the principle of profitability. In
1910 the High Commissioner, after studying the Perak irrigation programme for the previous year, queried the poor returns the
45
government was receiving for its investments. He noted that the
water rate in the Krian scheme was $67,000, a return of $37,000 on 4 6
the capital cost after deduction of the maintenance costs. More
generally, he observed that many of the works were entirely
charitable and, in an attempt to cut down the programme of small-scale irrigation works, authorised that future financial votes were to be used for the purposes specified and that new schemes were to be remunerative. The Perak Resident, realising that a tightening of funds would be disastrous to his irrigation plans, made a spirited reply to the criticisms. Regarding the Krian scheme, he forwarded a
44 There were two types of expenditure in the FMS - annually recurrent expenditure which consisted of personal emoluments, and special services expenditure which consisted of funds allocated for the construction of facilities. The former gives an indication of the size of the department and the latter an indication of the works embarked upon.
The figures below compare both types of expenditure in Perak and Selangor over a seven-year period .
Expenditure on Irrigation Expenditure on Drainage
In Perak In Selangor
IAR ISS DAR DSS
1906 $41,116 65,541 2,498 40,609 1907 21,073 40,550 10,202 58,904 1908 52,107 111,186 8,230 27,176 1909 44,229 30,411 9,628 1,036 1910 54,037 33,720 10,800 11,867 1911 63,722 49,557 8,928 31,687 1912 72,661 68,612 11,245 8,730
Source : FMS Estimates of Expenditure 1907-13
45 Secretary to HC to Federal Secretary, 7 March 1910, HCOF 317/10. Some part of the amount was paid by plantations within the
irrigation area. It is not possible to find out exactly how
much this was but the High Commissioner had especially singled
out the rates charged on plantations as being too low. Ibid.
report by the District Officer which estimated that the capital expenditure would be recovered within 27 years by the water rates
47
alone, notwithstanding the revenue from land rents and indirect taxation. He also supported the view that there should be an
extension not only of the Krian Irrigation Scheme but also of other works. However, in an attempt to mollify the High Commissioner,
Birch issued a circular forbidding works of an eleemosynary nature and instructing that new works be financed from maintenance votes. Despite the concession by the Perak authorities the High Commissioner refused to consider the situation as satisfactory. In
1911, however, he was compelled to reconsider his unsympathetic attitude. In that year a disastrous drought hit the Federated Malay States, sharply reducing the cultivable padi area, particularly in
48
Negri Sembilan, The only area which escaped unscathed was Krian where a normal acreage was planted. As a result, the Chief Secretary wrote to the High Commissioner suggesting that more emphasis be
placed on irrigation and recommending that an Irrigation Branch be 49
established. He pointed out that the country required many
irrigation schemes and that the Public Works Department alone could not execute them.~^ This suggestion was approved, but pending the
47 Copy of Hale's minute, 28 April 1.910, enclosure in BR Perak to RG, 3 July 1910, ibid.
48 Many peasants petitioned the administration for rent remission